< 13 December	15 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that this can be recreated if it is neutrally written and is shown to meet WP:BIO. Sandstein 09:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zain Sabah Al-Naser Al-Sabah[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, written far too much like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article and relying far too heavily on primary source verification of her existence rather than reliably sourced evidence of notability. And even the one or two sources here that are more legitimate than the rest still mostly just glancingly namecheck her existence rather than being substantively about her; there's just one source here that's both substantive and reliable enough to count for anything toward WP:GNG, and one source isn't enough to pass GNG by itself. None of Wikipedia's notability criteria for people ever entitle anybody to keep a poorly-sourced and PR-toned profile just because they exist — they must be the subject of coverage in reliable sources to become eligible for an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as I actually tagged this not long after it was started and there isn't even anything to currently suggest minimal general notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Participants might want to review earlier versions of the article as the nominator removed several links to sources just before making the nomination - but on the other hand, they may not want to bother as most of the removed sources seem to have been inappropriately used and poor enough that their removal may even have improved the article. More to the point in this discussion, the tone of previous contributions may have been sufficiently influenced by the undoubted promotionality of the current article as to be somewhat more dismissive of the possibility of notability from other sources than is really justified. There seem to be quite a few reliable sources that at least mention the subject, particularly if one uses a short version of her name (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - most of these, admittedly, seem to be fairly unsubstantial, often being routine announcements made by her in her current second- or third-level government appointment, but the combination of being a woman in a political position in an Arabian emirate, together with her close relationship to the current Emir of Kuwait, may well have generated something deeper that I have overlooked. Such sources, though, could well be in Arabic, which I can not read at all, and probably need to be searched for by an Arabic-speaker, if there is one currently around. PWilkinson (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any links to sources, just for the record. I removed WP:ELNO violations, which isn't the same thing — a company that's named in the article doesn't get to have its name offlinked to its own website as a substitute for a Wikipedia article about that company, for example. And every single link I removed from the running body text as an ELNO violation was just a repetition of a link that still appears in the references section as a footnote anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is her Kuwaiti government appointment high enough to make her notable?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In response to Johnpacklambert's question - no, I don't believe that the undersecretary is by itself establishing notability. Regarding the article, delete per nom and above editors. Poorly sourced, highly promotional. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Bryson (filmmaker)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a young filmmaker notable only as the co-director of a single 10-minute short documentary film, citing no reliable source coverage to support it — the only sources here are an article he wrote and an article his more established co-director wrote, making them both primary sources that count for nothing toward establishing WP:GNG. As always, a Wikipedia article is not something that every film director automatically gets to have just because he exists — reliable source coverage, demonstrating that he passes WP:CREATIVE, is what it takes, and until then it's just WP:TOOSOON. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability can be demonstrated better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there's nothing to suggest even minimally better general notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article can always be recreated if the subject passes notability in the future. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources yet. It's probably too soon for an article. The film itself isn't exactly the most notable thing in the world, but I guess his article could be redirected there. I generally don't think it's worth redirecting disambiguated, low-profile individuals, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the views stated above. If Jonah becomes better known in the future, he may then warrant a Wikipedia entry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BIO, WP:FILMMAKER - Does not have substantial coverage in multiple independant sources. A Highbeam search gave 0 results, google showed 9 mentions in news items. Does not meet the specific requirements pointed out at WP:FILMMAKER. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vlado Milošević[edit]

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

Delete stub article for non-notable musician. Also delete redirect Vlado Milosevic. Quis separabit? 23:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - notable Serbian musician. "As both composer and scholar, Vlado Milosevic was a central figure in the music of Bosnia and Herzegovina during much of the 20th century."[1] —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if it can be better improved especially with familiar attention as this will surely have archived coverage and the such. SwisterTwister talk 08:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: UPON REFLECTION AND FURTHER RESEARCH IN RESPONSE TO KEEP VOTES, I REALIZE THIS UNSOURCED STUB HAS POTENTIAL. UPDATED AS BEST I COULD FOR NOW, SO: NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Quis separabit? 14:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oakland Athletics minor league players. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Martin[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or NBASEBALL. TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oakland Athletics minor league players. I agree he doesn't meet GNG at present, but there's potential for him to in the near future and we set up these minor league player pages to incubate individuals whose GNG cases are spotty. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree with Muboshgu. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he passes GNG along with the sources in the article [2][3][4]--Yankees10 19:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oakland Athletics minor league players. His coverage is, as far as I can tell, WP:ROUTINE for a minor-leaguer; while a good prospect, he isn't in the majors yet and I don't think he crosses the GNG bar quite yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Athletics MLPs-He isn't in the major leagues yet and probably isn't above the GNG bar.Joel.Miles925 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oakland Athletics minor league players. I remind everyone that WP:GNG is a prerequisite, but not a guarantee of the subject's inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Even when a particular subject is clearly notable, editors may decide that the subject is better covered as part of a larger article or list, and for most minor league baseball players they are better covered proportionately and in the context of their minor league contemporaries. This is called "editorial judgment," which is often confused with notability; they are not the same thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Chase[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a blogger and musician. This makes no substantive claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, for either endeavour — and all it has for referencing is IMDb (which is not a reliable or notability-conferring source, per WP:IMDB/RS) and a blurb on The Huffington Post (which is not substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG as the article's only valid source.) WP:TOOSOON would appear to apply here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her notability and sourceability can be shown better than they are right now. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this suggests even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, hence does not meet notability criteria. Created by SPA. Citobun (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Steel[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an underwear model and local radio personality. This makes no strong claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) for either endeavour, and it rests entirely on primary sources with not so much as one comma of reliable source coverage shown. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The non-Twitter sources might show him (is that him in the gimp hood?), but they don't mention him. The rest is just his Twitter feed. Nothing reliable. Nothing notable. Bgwhite (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no reliable sources, created by SPA and appears to be a case of COI self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TaiG[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The article has no references at all, there is nothing at all on Google News, and a Google general search found no reliable sources - just their own Web sites and a few blog posts. I tagged it for Notability more than two weeks ago asking for any good sources, but none have emerged. Gronk Oz (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this suggests even minimally better satisfying software notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC
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) 17:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jacobs[edit]

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

Does not really appear to be notable, unless we assume that any CEO is notable. The references are about his company, not him, and most of them are press releases. There is no independent third-party coverage demonstrating Jacob's notability beyond the fact that he founded a successful company. ubiquity (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of the current article even suggests fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines and, lastly, only draft and userfy if actually needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; weight of consensus is on the side of deletion. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Kox[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations; by repeatedly demonstrated consensus, Urban X award does not meet PORNBIO's "well-known/significant" requirement. No independent reliable sourcing, just promo sources and award-related announcements. No reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winner, meet of the PORNBIO. There is no consensus for Urban X award. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current "well-known"/"significant" PORNBIO standard, there hsve been a dozen or so deletion discussions which addressed these awards directly. All but one closed as "delete", one closed "no consensus". That's a pretty solid demonstration of the community's view, which is just about the polar opposite of yours. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seemingly not currently fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Urban X Award winner.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as several other stars articles have been deleted when the Urban X award was their only real claim at notability. The organization was questionable (not to mention short-lived) anyway with the large number of awards given to others closely connected to the runner of the awards, Giana Taylor. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - As stunning as she is looks unfortunately mean jack notability-wise!, Fails PORNBIO and GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Venice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable rapist who worked in porn up until his arrest. Deleted uncontroversially in 2007, and all that's changed since then is that he's been convicted and sentenced. That's probably enough to defeat db-repost, but it surely doesn't make him notable now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Wolfowitz. A non-notable pornographer who does not become notable because he is convicted of a crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned with my searches finding nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal prime[edit]

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

An "illegal prime" is an illegal number that happens to be a prime number; it appears that the idea is interesting to some people because you can put it on a website or something and say "hey, check out this prime number", and then the legal case against you might be weaker than if you were just publishing a random illegal number. (This is all rather theoretical, because the specific information being encoded in the examples cited, the code for the DeCSS program, has already been published in its full form by many people, in most cases with no legal repercussions.) Anyway, this concept, whether interesting or not, seems to lack notability. Of all the references here, most are to self-published websites (which probably shouldn't be getting cited at all), one is to a Wall Street Journal article that doesn't specifically mention illegal primes, and finally there's a short article in The Register which, if I'm counting correctly, spends 2 of its 6 sentences talking specifically about illegal primes. There simply does not appear to be any significant coverage of this concept. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Prime Pages is a respected site we often cite. The Register had a second article later.[5] Google quickly finds more sources, e.g. [6] in Math Horizons, [7] in ExtremeTech, [8] in SF Crowsnest, [9] by Rael Dornfest in O'Reilly, [10] by David S. Touretzky at Carnegie Mellon University. Disclosure: I have cooperated online with the discoverer Phil Carmody on other things but not worked on illegal primes. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find a source demonstrating notability such as Prime Numbers: The Most Mysterious Figures in Math. It might be sensible to merge with the more general page of illegal number but that's not done by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a high-quality nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with illegal number, obviously. Reyk _YO! 14:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with illegal number. There's some notability here but the two concepts really aren't independent enough for two separate articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is a decent claim to notability made in the article. If the sources are not adequate, the proper course of action is to tag specific claims that are unsourced or improperly sourced with an inline ((cn)) tag, or in extreme cases, place a general tag at the top of the article. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not tear it down. Please note, also, that the nominator previously blanked the article and redirected it to illegal number without adding any material from this article to the target. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 16:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PrimeHunter's findings. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 13:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep on the basis that the sources now in the article show the concept to be notable enough for retention. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People watching[edit]

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

While the expression "people watching" is certainly very common, there does not seem to be a definition beyond the meaning of the two words. The sources provided here are more like examples and do not define the concept well enough for an encyclopedia article. Besides the sources have little to do with what is claimed in the article. Skylark777 (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the article can be better with an expansion, Google Books reveals books from where information might be incorporated. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We can also merge this to Body language. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that is not what people usually mean when they talk about people watching, including the sources provided in the article. It's usually about going someplace and watching people walk around and interact in public.Borock (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's stack of books with this title including Peoplewatching: The Desmond Morris Guide to Body Language; People Watching: Social, Perceptual, and Neurophysiological Studies of Body Perception; People Watching; Everybody's Guide to People Watching, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep Most of the books mentioned are about Body language, certainly a notable topic. However the article seems to be talking about a recreational activity, and this is the way I've heard the expression used. I'm not sure it goes beyond: "People watching is watching people." Borock (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not discuss topic in depth, or even define it. They are just examples. People watching is not body language so don't merge or redirect there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- a notable topic Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As other editors have noted, this is a well-documented phenomenon with plenty of coverage in reliable sources (see, e.g., this Huffington Post article and this article from National Geographic; I added these sources to the article). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. I have changed my vote to keep.Borock (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous books written on the subject, often discussed in reliable sources, well-known, this should be a simple keep. Jacona (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the phenomenon exists, maybe under other names. Zezen (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Jafri Muhd Firdaus Chew[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seconding what GiantSnowman said, fails to meet notability guidelines. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be recreated if and when he passes WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 16:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristal Summers[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Claimed mainstream appearances are insubstantial and inadequately documented. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Kansiime (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - May be somewhat known but there may not be enough solid for a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Motion, Inc[edit]

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

Created by single-purpose promotional-only accounts. Only one reference with non-trivial coverage that appears to meet WP:RS (this article from a local paper). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the listed coverage solidly suggests satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per nom and SwisterTwister. Nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Short[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a performance artist, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability as opposed to mere existence — and further, the sourcing here is almost entirely to non-notable blogs rather than reliable source media coverage. Even the one publication here that can ever actually count for anything whatosever, Curve, in this instance just offers a blurby little four question mini-interview rather than a genuinely substantive article about her. But it's a longstanding principle of AFD that because they represent the subject talking about herself, and thus are subject to the same problems that apply to self-published public relations profiles, interviews cannot count toward getting an article subject over WP:GNG — that source would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the rest of the sourcing around it was already solid enough to satisfy GNG, but her notability has not been properly demonstrated if it's the only valid source you have to offer. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be fixed, but this version of the article is not sourced well enough to be considered keepable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as this is questionably notable and perhaps simply not improvable enough for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some more meat to the article with better references from an academic paper and the queer print press (see Xtra!) Car Henkel (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two Xtra articles you added, one is substantively about her while the other just namechecks her existence a single time in an article about something else — which means that the second one doesn't count toward GNG at all, and the first one counts as one point toward a GNG score that's still sitting at one because none of the other sources count for anything. And the "academic paper" citation may suffer from the same problem — is she a major subject of it, or does she just get glancingly namechecked on page 94 of a work that isn't otherwise about her? I can't tell without seeing the text of the book for myself, but it does make a difference. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PDF of thesis can be downloaded here.[11] (Inserted link in article.) It's more than a passing mention. I was unaware of a point system for WP:GNG. Where can I learn more? Car Henkel (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It takes several — not just one — sources which are substantively about the subject — not just blurbs or passing mentions — to pass GNG. There's no points checklist per se, but it does take multiple substantive sources before GNG is met. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userfy I think there's a lot of coverage, but she's not a mainstream artist which makes this a much tougher case. Performance art has never been a heavily covered subject since it's not collectible and is ephemeral and therefore of less value to our culture. That's she's a queer performance artist complicates it further. I'm not saying those are reasons to keep, but things to keep in mind when evaluating the article. I think she just barely passes GNG and if the closer disagrees, I'd plead to userfy the article as possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON since much of her coverage is recent. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Have no issue with userfying if there is a willing editor, as Megalibrarygirl's WP:TOOSOON comment is a possibility. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weak sourcing that does not really go beyond existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

María V. Martínez[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:SOLDIER - CSM isnt senior enough - if she were Sgt Maj of the Army then yes. Page creator feels that as one of the few Hispanic Women to reach her rank she is notable. Is that enough? Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article María V. Martínez has been proposed for deletion because it is said that it fails WP:SOLDIER - where Command Sgt Majors are not notable however if she were a SgtMajor of the Army then she would be. It should be made clear that, unlike the claim of the nominator, the creator feels that her notability has nothing to do with her rank, if that were the case then many Medal of Honor recipients would not qualify because of their rank. Her notability has to do with her achievements and accomplishments in the military.

I believe her to be notable, not only because she is one of the few Latina/Hispanic Women to reach her rank, but because she is the Senior Enlisted Adviser to the Director of the Army Diversity Office in the Pentagon, Washington D.C., a very important position in the U.S. military. She is also the recipient of two Legion of Merit medals, a medal which ranks as the third highest United States Military decoration (after the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Medal). Martínez was also honored in 1989, she was recognized as the "Soldier of the Year" by the Milwaukee Recruiting Battalion.

She has also been awarded the following recognition's:

Recruiter of the Year 1987-88
Soldier of the Year 1989 Milwaukee Recruiting Battalion.
Department of Defense (DOD) Hispanic Image Award
National GI Forum Military Person of the Year, Washington DC
Recruiting Glen Morrell Order of the Medallion

Tony the Marine (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NCOs are never kept just for doing their job unless they are the most senior NCO in the service. Her awards just aren't high enough for notability - many of them are internal awards recognised only by the US Army and the remainder are fairly minor service awards. The Legion of Merit is far too common to qualify a recipient for notability - you would have to have two Distinguished Service Crosses (not Medals) for that (and note they're for gallantry, not for just doing your job well). Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER and all other standards of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. That aside I disagree with Necrothesp's reasoning above as lacking any basis in policy (WP:SOLDIER is of course only an essay and is in no way prescriptive). Even "the most senior NCO in the service" wouldn't be kept unless they met WP:SIGCOV. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed only an essay. However, any of us who edit military articles know that in practice it is widely accepted at AfD and is a de facto notability standard. Neither do I believe I said that the most senior NCO in a service should be kept per WP:SOLDIER, which is not the case; they are, however, almost invariably kept in practice. The claim that there is no inherent notability is true per strict interpretation of the guidelines; but clearly untrue in the actual interpretation at AfD. There are no set in stone rules on Wikipedia; there is only consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and SOLDIER. Being one of the few (as opposed to the Few) is not enough; you need to be the first to have a chance. (P.S. Serving in the military isn't considered "servitude".) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Even though there are indications of canvassing, as seen in the unusual participation of many users with few edits and a "keep" opinion, there's no way to find a consensus to delete here. Sandstein 09:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian supercentenarians[edit]

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

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)).

This list covers most of the people on List of supercentenarians from Oceania where the country of everyone is already noted. It is the only county specific breakout of the Oceania group, a list that is not so long it requires breaking out. Delete, leaving the title as a redirect to the Oceania article. This will reduce the maintenance required and the chances of error or variation. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of supercentenarians from Oceania should be deleted, not this one. Australia is a country so deserves it's own article. Oceania is not a country so should be deleted as they do not warrant a separate entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crveni5 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Except Australia and Oceania aren't the same thing, so this argument doesn't really work. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

according to the old people trackers Aussieland is in Oceania. There are no country specific articles for any other place in the region, so either exclude Aussieland from Oceania or merge. As it is old people in Aust go on the country list, the region list, and the world list and the three lists don't match up, so evidently there are errors. However someone lucky enough to live in New Zealand only goes on two lists - world and Oceania. Someone got a better idea that will reduce maintenance and move toward greater accuracy - please share. 23:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Keep. There's no reason we can't have two lists (plus List of New Zealand supercentenarians, if one were so inclined). Keeping them in sync and accurate is not a deletion issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the exact title you mentioned was already deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_New_Zealand_supercentenarians as redundant to other lists. Legacypac (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This remains a valuable encyclopedic resource; and those who need or desire specific divisions can rely appropriately on Wikipedia. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oceania list. All these scattered, overlapping slices and dices by country, region, etc. have no advantage over a small set of larger lists (pseudo-continental), which are easily sorted and searched on e.g. country. And the scattered lists have the disadvantage of maintenance headaches. `EEng (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oceania list. Unnecessary duplication of material for nothing more than fanfluff listcruft reasons. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why do you want to remove Australia? With this argument you also can remove United States and Canada articles because they are the only North American countries (next to Greenland, Bermuda and St Pierre et Miquelon) and merge this into the North American list. --31.16.61.184 (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

The US and Canada lists should be eliminated as well, just as you say. This is a big job and it can't happen all at once. EEng (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's on my to do list. I started with nominating the Caribbean list to be merged with North America because it is just a random subset of North America where all the people are also listed. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is this a job? Are you paid to nominate articles for deletion? Petervermaelen (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Are you paid to make nonsense posts intentionally misinterpreting common English words? (Or was it unintentional?) EEng (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Canadian Paul 06:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with the Oceania list. This is a fork that manages to cause maintenance hassle. Unified lists should be preferred. Some large countries such as the United States or China might justify a list for single country, but Australia does not have enough population. Ceosad (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say the United States or China might justify a stand-alone article because they are large countries. Then you suddenly say Australia doesn't have enough population. However Australia is a large country. Suppose tomorrow a plague spread in China and 99% of the population dies. Then all of a sudden it wouldn't justify a stand-alone article anymore? That argument doesn't make any sense. Petervermaelen (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Actually, no, China and the US will no doubt be merged into their respective continental list in due course. Anyway, if a plague killed 99% of China's population, there'd be more serious problems to deal with than these lists. Any not-ridiculous points you'd like to raise? EEng (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that makes no sense - the oldest people trivia buffs don't recognize a single Chinese or ANY Asian person outside Japan as being 110 years old, which is astonishing given how 60% of people in the world live in Asia and less then 3% of Asians live in Japan. Australia and Oceania together = 0.53% of global population and if rolled together into a country would be #36 on the most populous country list. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I have some of the same suspicions for track and field, where buffs have deliberately skewed the results. Take a look at the lists at 100 metres#Fastest 100 metres runners, where my buddy Usain Bolt can help make the point. Jamaica and its three million inhabitants accounts for five of the ten fastest time among men, and tiny Trinidad and Tobago with 1.2 million people has three spots in the top 25. Yet there are only three men from all of Europe and another two men from the entire African continent on the top 25. Not one person from all of Asia -- China plus India and several dozen other countries -- appears among the 25 fastest men and only one woman from Asia in the top 25 women. Should we delete all track results or just start with the 100 metres based on the evident bias? Or could there be other confounding factors, both in terms of longevity and track? Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Chinese competitors were bared from competing by artificially high standards, you might have a point. That would be raciest. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if they were "bared" it would be "raciest"; perhaps the reduced weight may help increase speed. But they're not. Everyone in the world can compete in the 100 metres, but most don't and most fall short of the fastest times. I think that there is a confluence of factors of nature, nurture, organization and political structures across the globe in both extreme age and the 100 metres that has led to what appears to be bias to the uninitiated. I have every reason to believe that someone from China or India may one day be the world's fastest and / or the world's oldest, whether the measuring tool is a stopwatch or calendar. That this isn't so today is hardly evidence of bias in either field. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Alansohn on this. Obviously if any large group of people (Chinese or not) were all bared that would be, if not the raciest, certainly very racy, especially on television. EEng (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, the reason that there are very few non-Japanese Asians on the lists of oldest people is that record-keeping in areas like China and India are generally very poor. Not many people have birth certificates or anything like that, so their ages can't be proven. There's no point in making lists of the oldest people if you don't attempt to verify their ages - anyone can CLAIM to be 110/115/120 or whatever, but that doesn't mean they actually are. That's not to say that there aren't genuine supercentenarians in these places, just not many whose ages can be proven. It's just a case of taking a scientific, sceptical approach to things. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

China has records, just not up to Super Old enthusiast standards. All my Chinese friends know when they were born. It's an attack on Chinese culture and maybe race to reject all claims to super long life because of alleged poor documentation Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's called setting a certain standard of evidence required in order to consider a claim verified. If you actually bothered to do a small amount of research in to the topic which you insist on "cleaning up"(Personal attack removed)Ollie231213 (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I refute the allegation that this was a personal attack. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the verified oldest people (or just delete). No reason for all of these location-specific lists. One list for the world is enough. I suspect redirecting to List of supercentenarians from Oceania will be the more popular idea here, and I'm OK with that too, as a fallback position. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't make any sense. The list of the verified oldest people is only a list of the top 100 oldest people ever, whereas this is a list of the oldest living and oldest ever people from a single country, which is a topic likely to be of interest to people. The two are not the same. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Merging to the Oceania list solves that problem. EEng (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the largest nation in Oceania, a standalone article is appropriate, and adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to support the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there so many discrepancies between Article Oceania and Article Australia which should be a subset of Oceania? If Australia is so important it needs its own article, then is Australia+New Zealand+all the other countries too big a list to justify an article? Also try searching "Australian supercentenarians" - cause all I find are Wikipedia. mirrors of Wikipedia, and a couple blogs that quote Wikipedia. No independant coverage of this as a topic so it fails our criteria for lists at WP:LISTN. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Google search on australia supercentenarians -wikipedia gets 10,800 results. The correpsonding search using Oceania gets 2,090 results. If there are discrepancies, they can be fixed, so that's hardly a justification for deletion. Can you point to all of the articles showing "Oceania supercentenarians" as the more common title? Alansohn (talk) 9:23 am, Today (UTC−5)

Would renaming the merged article List of supercentenarians in Australia and Oceania make people willing to support the merge? Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Australia is part of the continent Oceania. If the result would be "keep", accept this please.--37.4.93.13 (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Keep. Australia is the largest nation in Oceana, Just as the US is the largest in North America. The arguments of records issues with China and elsewhere are totally irrelevant to a list in a location in which records are good. Unless we are making war on lists in general, there is no reason why this one shouldn't stand. Jacona (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Australia has a high number of cases fully verified and big chances to see an increasing longevity rate in the future. No plausible reasons to delete this page. I suggest to cancel "List of supercentenarians from Oceania" and refresh a page for New Zealand cases because I think that a classification by country is better that by continent above all pages for Asia, North America and Oceania. --Dakota86x (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
SNOW Keep Reasons listed above are convincing to me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced and concerns a nation large enough to have it's own page on this subject. 930310 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Well sourced? All but two references are GRG tables. Can you provide reliable sources discussing "Australian supercentenarians" that aren't a list of names from the GRG? CommanderLinx (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly over on the oldest German page editors are arguing that Germans are private and don't want to send personal documents to GRG - something I agree with - so sourcing only to GRG tables is pretty suspect. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covers a political body that already existed 110 years ago; various other reasons have been mentioned above. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

User:Legacypac, I believe you are falsely attempting to cast editors with whom you disagree in a negative light. How did you come to your conclusion that 7&6=thirteen is a single purpose account? This user has been editing Wikipedia for quite some time and in many areas. Falsely accusing a user of being an SPA is a form of personal attack. Jacona (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

83,000 edits and over 8 years of service. I will gladly compare my Wikipedia record to User:Legacypac's. WP:personal attack and WP:Civil should require a quick retraction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - they voted keep in the middle of a group of spas voting keep - just a slip I've fixed. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shit happens. No harm, no foul. {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Legacypac, you do gotta cool it. Calling 7&6 an {spa} really makes it seem like you're way too quick on the trigger. EEng (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac, I also looked through the edits of User:Ollie231213. While this editor has made many edits to longevity articles, they have also made many to football related topics. The SPA tag, which states that the user has made "few or no edits" outside the subject matter does not apply. It is not acceptable to just start casting WP:ASPERSIONS at any editor one disagrees with! Please be very careful before continuing with these personal attacks. Attacking editors rather than making a case with policy is unlikely to produce the desired results. Jacona (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie started making a few football edits after he was repeatedly tagged as a spa and if you look back further as I have you should agree with the spa statement. I even saw one place where he tagged himself as an spa! Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And do what? Calling one another names does not aid the deliberative process or build collegiality. Randomly calling out other editors without any factual basis is WP:Disruptive. When you find yourself deep in a hole it is time to stop digging. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging SPAs as such is standard procedure at AfD, and it I who first began doing so in these longevity nominations. Ollie, without question, fits the bill. EEng (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest the Keep voters who are quick to criticism my policy based nomination find a policy reason to keep a list that should overlap another list by 90% without adding any information that is not completely obvious on the larger list? ILIKEIT is not a good reason. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPA's are not necessarily "evil", as many are "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest" who "contribute neutrally". personal attacks, however, are. Jacona (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, WP:SPATG states that " If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA." and that "You should under no circumstance consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag." Jacona (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ollie started making a few football edits after he was repeatedly tagged as a spa..." Or maybe I just like football? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a variant of an ad hominem fallacy. Not particularly useful. If you really have evidence bring it on. If you don't then desist. And talk about real issues, not personalities. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supercentenarians is not a broad topic. As explained at the spa page, it is not necessarily an attack, but it is interesting to see spa accounts come out in mass for these AfDs. Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Australia as a big country with well organized infrastructure to document the lifetime of its citizens and at least 110 years old history as an independant country is qualified for such a list also as countries like USA, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Brazil, Russia and Japan. So keep this article.--Kachelus (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Merge or Redirect to the Oceania article. The less list-clutter, the better. I believe this fails WP:LISTN since all but two references are GRG links and nothing discussing this particular list. I note that the Oceania article contains the exact same list of names that are in this one so "Australia" could be merged/redirected there without loss of any info. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update related similar articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians born in the Russian_Empire, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary have now closed as delete. The sister articles on Caribbean and Nordic Countries were also deleted. The same arguments used here were used on those 4 with good effect. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. In any case, this is an apples and oranges comparison - different places, different articles, and none of those are actually (modern day) countries. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course they're different places and different articles -- if they were the same place and same article, it wouldn't be an analogy, would it? Not sure what the significance is of modern-day country or not. EEng (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic article that can be used as a resource for those who are searching for the specific information included as part of this article. The article is also adequately sourced. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They could search/sort a grand Oceania list, or whole-world list, and get exactly the same information, with the added bonus that (if they wanted) they could see e.g. all Australia and NZ, or other combination of their choice, in one place. EEng (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's even simpler then that since outside Austrilia there are only 2 people from New Zealand and 1 other person that are supposed to be on the list. We are talking over 90% overlap. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)#[reply]

I think there are two problems: One is the overlap you mentioned. The other is the fact, that Oceania is a continent and we have lists of supercentenarians from all continents, Australia is a country, and we have lists of supercentenarians from different bigger and important countries, e.g. Australia, USA, Canada, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan and so on. This creates an overlap and I cannot not see a problem in this fact, if both lists would be updated regularly. So Australian fans update the Australian list and continent fans update the Oceania list. No one is discriminated in this case, what we have now. There is no significant reason for a change.--31.16.61.124 (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is part of an effort to eliminate the country pages, which are not getting updated and are far out of sync. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cannot see any reason for deletion of the country pages, especially that ones, which are well-sourced. Perhaps I am alone with this opinion, but I think, much work here of several users would be destroyed by deletion of well-sourced contents.--Kachelus (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would work be lost if the country lists are merged each to their corresponding continent list? EEng (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The European continent list e.g. ends at rank 50. Many European countries there do not have a supercentenarian in this area. So this work would be destroyed - look at the Swiss or Austrian supercentenarians and show me where I can find them on the European list - both lists of Swiss and Austrian supercentenarians were deleted and work was destroyed. Think about that, please, before you will delete other countries like in this case Australia.--Kachelus (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge means that whatever's in the country list is added to the continent list before the country list is deleted.EEng (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Oceania list does not include all the people on this list but it should. Merging solves that problem. We already merged 4 European country lists to the continent article so arguing against that is too late. There is no reason the list has to stop at 100 people - why not 1000 which is another valid number. As for this country being big enough for a list - how about Belgium - is it small enough to not have a list? Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons stated by others !voting to keep. Also, suggest a snow close to shut this discussion down ASAP because of the complete cluster-F^@# this AfD has become. Those engaging in the childishness here should be trouted for it. Or maybe "Lutefisked" since it's the Christmas season. Gawd. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 17:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Harris[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer. He's given a few quotes over the years to media but there's nothing in the references about him personally. He's listed as a CSIS chief at the bottom of the page but I don't think that's accurate, it looks like he was just a contractor. I've searched but can't turn up anything reliable about him. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced his current job to 2 separate, reported articles, both published this fall in the Ottawa Sun. It took about 2 seconds to find them. Please run a careful WP:BEFORE , BEFORE bringing articles to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fact: They have politics even in Canada. The left wing dislikes/disparages Harris, the right wing quotes him widely - hardly an unusual situation. His articles, opinions show up well on a search of google books with the search terms: "David B. Harris" + terrorism. Unsurprisingly, he shows up in these books to be disparaged by the left and cited by the right. No objection to tagging the article for sourcing, improvement. I see no valid argument at all for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches aren't a valid measure of notability (see WP:INVALIDBIO). The question is whether there is significant coverage of Harris himself, and not simply him giving the occasional quote to various media sources. Can you give me a reliable source that covers him in any depth at all? FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly passes WP:BASIC, and RS show that he is considered an expert in his field. For example, this is more than a simple quote, but an at-length explanation which makes up the core of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

João Marcos Brandet[edit]

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

Despite the absolute plenitude of refs, it is difficult to find any sense of any significance let alone notability. I can find nothing that gets close to WP:GNG. Sure he is bright and can produce endless papers that indicate that, but that just doesn't cut the mustard on Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This 17-yo may become notable in time, but I found no evidence to suggest that he is yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. A quick review of several of his "published works" indicate that he is fond of copying text from the Swedish Wikipedia and publishing it under his own name. (Compare KÄRNFYSIK: RÖNTGENSTRÅLNING, FOTONSTRÅLNING, GAMMASTRÅLNING, URAN, PLUTONIUM OCH CESIUM to sv:Röntgenstrålning, or SVART HÅL to sv:Svart hål, as just a quick sampling.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It is a hoax. In addition to WikiDan's info, Brandet was still a student at Londrina State University in 2013. The article sets up a premise with actual refs in normal text. It then has a brief italicized quote with Brandet's wordpress "articles" as a ref. Bgwhite (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Zenker[edit]

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

Not a notable author JDDJS (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems that the volume of work as an author and publisher would qualify for inclusion for public information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrafinski (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of this suggests even a minimally general notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Matthew Carlin[edit]

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

Through WP:OTRS there was a request for deletion. I am starting this deletion discussion in response to that request. I have no opinion on the matter. It would be helpful to confirm that this Wikipedia article, if it is not deleted, conforms with Wikipedia community guidelines. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search came up with few hits; nothing particularly interesting or useful, and OTRS usually has the last word, no? Quis separabit? 04:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are joking, but to be clear for any new users that might check this, OTRS has no authority. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently there's hardly much to suggest even a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Joe (reggaeton)[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 17:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches only found some of the currently listed news links (all for his death) and none of it seems to suggest an even minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Malin[edit]

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

Created and contributed to (~80% of edits) by SPA/COI. Subject fails notability general guidelines: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times or The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field No specific notability guides for businesspeople, but even being flexible with the criteria and the spirit of the criteria, this person falls short. Founded a company that eventually sold for a considerable sum of money. This in itself does not convey notability. I went through all the other points e.g. contributed to a book. It's a two page profile in a book that wasn't particularly notable itself https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5wJMVYXFq5gC&pg=PT140&dq=%22sam+malin%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbnLj25NvJAhXJ1RQKHS-7CSAQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=%22sam%20malin%22&f=false and 3 years later he contributed an even briefer half page as one of 150 contributors to the follow up book https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i2zgAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT123&dq=%22sam+malin%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbnLj25NvJAhXJ1RQKHS-7CSAQ6AEIQDAH#v=onepage&q=%22sam%20malin%22&f=false Subject has had a little press thanks to his wife's appearance on X Factor and their appearance on a TV show etc (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1167021/It-happened--I-survived-helicopter-crash.html and http://thesteepletimes.com/characters/sam-malin-and-irene-major-aka-lord-and-lady-hailes/ and http://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/flashiest-family-stars-in-tv-44398/ Nothing on JStor. Highbeam throws up this article about a Kenyan deal in 2011 https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-252898023.html and this from 2006 https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151616414.html The one academic paper match (also listed in article) may be a false positive as rest of subject's biography suggests he may not have been doing research into lazy eye in 2003. http://mvr.mcgill.ca/Robert/PDF-03/Hess-Malin-2003.pdf In my view, the sum of a small number of low level things does not equate to notability. Rayman60 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable as per @Rayman60. Quis separabit? 17:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as simply looking at the history shows you the concerns with this article and none of the current article even suggests better satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/speedy delete per below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1MDB Airlines[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable, independent sources to establish this airline's existance and/or notability. Drm310 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be deleted under CSD G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1MDB Group. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there's nothing to suggest this newly formed airline is solidly notable for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but a random user removed it. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1Malaysia Development Berhad, a parent. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (face) 16:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no official announcement that this airline exist or will exist. The webpage redirects to a parent company stated by the above user and shows no indication of any airline web page. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This airline will replace the routes flown previously by Malaysia Airlines 175.137.70.104 (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - it appears was able to no official announcement are notable but WP:RS. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Flynn[edit]

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

~~This article depends on being a relative of another celebrity The Avengers 16:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 03:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as none of this suggests even minimally better for both general and actors notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no reliable sources, reads like a CV, not an encyclopedia article. Citobun (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Citobun - The article reads like a CV & there's sod all on Google, Best outcome for this is to delete. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 03:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar Oil[edit]

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

Outside of existing issues of poor quality article, not quite neutral, COI/SPA editing, complete lack of references, this also to me does not seem to meet notability. There's very little in mainstream press - all is either arcane financial or industry (oil) stuff. This is the closest I could get, the financial section of the Mail about a deal earlier this year: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-3043592/SMALL-CAP-MOVERS-Shares-Madagascar-Oil-double-growing-optimism-oilers-lifts-AIM.html Whilst trying to apply notability criteria to this and comparing to industry peers, this company felt considerably smaller and less notable than others. For example it's the only entry in the oil companies of madagascar category, so I looked at aussie companies and they dwarfed this company by revenue, suggesting this company is small and not notable unless there is something specific which makes it so, and I can't see that anywhere. Rayman60 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above as not only is this nearly even speedy material, none of it even suggests minimally satisfying notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree about COI editing, the bad state of the article, lack of references etc. However, as it has been established in Afd cases before, the size of the company is not an argument for notability, so this comparison with aussi companies is irrelevant. Also, for GNG, not necessarily the mainstream media is needed. Also industry-focused sources may satisfy GNG if the source is independent and reliable and provids significant coverage. There are that kind of sources available. Also, there are articles in Reuters ([12], [13]), Financial Times ([14], [15]), The Telegraph ([16], [17], [18]), also probably BBC ([19]), Bloomberg ([20]), local newspapers L'Express de Madagascar ([21], [22]), Madagascar Tribune ([23]). So, there is enough mainstream coverage. Beagel (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH with ease, per a review of available sources, including those listed above and those recently added to the article. Also, the article was copy edited/cleaned up after the time of this nomination (diff), and has been heavily copy edited thereafter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current condition has no sense of an afd candidate JarrahTree 01:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been worked on by Northamerica1000 and Beagel who have clearly demonstrated that it is a notable company that passes WP:CORPDEPTH, with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the poor state of an article is usually not a valid reason for deletion. Subject of the article meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Many thanks to North America for the improvement. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The article has been improved by Northamerica1000 and Beagel which shows that the article is about a notable company. Ayub407^talk 17:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, per WP:SK #2, #4 -- permission to close early granted on WP:ANI, nominator is indef blocked for mass AfD nomination and no other arguments for delete listed (non-admin closure) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cankurd[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and NPEOPLE. Even on Amazon there is only an unavailable book [24]. The person is mentioned in passing in a news article, but no substantative in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Hassan Rebell (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator is blocked.--Gomada (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Island Minerals[edit]

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

Non notable company. Created by SPA COI editor. Little content. Little independent coverage. Rayman60 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and restart if a better article is later available as this seems to have some coverage but perhaps not enough to solidly satisfy notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added some content and extra sources to the article, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the guidelines in WP:COMPANY to be sure that the criteria are fulfilled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The notability seems mainly to be related to the takeover by PTT, but I thinkk that after work by user:Cwmhiraeth the articles satisfies WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the improvements by Cwmhiraeth. Yash ! 09:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. As this has previously been a target for recreation-after-redirecting by SPAs, a temporary dose of WP:SALT will also be applied. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Giavanni[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician and self-styled "Google+ Conversation Authority and entrepreneur". Has run unsuccessfully for office as a write-in candidate 3 times (once for Governor of Colorado and twice for Mayor of Denver). Fails the notability criteria at both GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The article had been redirected to Denver mayoral election, 2015 yesterday. However, two SPAs have now repeatedly reverted the redirect. This previous version of the article yields no other credible claims to notability. A search for further sources based on that version shows that during the 2015 Denver Mayor election he had a talk show on KFNX [25] which also broadcasts paid programs, the sonic equivalent of advertorials. His show was sponsored by his own companies, neither of which are notable—SMO Worldwide and forsalebyownercompany.com—which he plugged on the show when not plugging his candidacy. I have no idea whether it is still being broadcast. His 1999 book is self-published (background here). Like UkPaolo, I believe a straight delete is in order rather than restoring the redirect. This was not a notable candidate in any of the three elections in which he ran. Voceditenore (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found trivial mentions, mainly in the context of the write-in campaigns, but substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources is absent. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominators rationale. (and I do think delete, rather than go back to a redirect to Denver mayoral election, 2015 as had previously been the case) _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also agree with UKPaolo that this should be a delete and not a redirect as Giavanni doesn't come close to nobility. Bgwhite (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with opinions of above editors and WP:N as Marcus Giovanni is not notable enough to be on an encyclopedia..Zyc1174 (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unsuccessful candidate for office does not get over WP:NPOL on that basis, but may have a Wikipedia article only if you can properly demonstrate and source that they would qualify for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of their candidacy. But that hasn't been shown here, as there's no sourcing or substance about anything but his candidacies. Agreed that it's an outright delete and not a suitable redirect — nothing here suggests that he's remotely plausible as a topic that people would actually be looking for on Wikipedia. "Google+ Conversation Authority" certainly is not a substantive claim of notability, for the record — if I do a web search on that term with a "-giavanni" constraint to filter this particular one out of the results, there are just eight hits left of which every last one is an irrelevant string of SEO keyword salad in a page within Giavanni's real estate site that's already noted in the nomination. So none of them proves that anybody else really thinks that's a real thing, and accordingly I'm getting a distinct whiff of self-promotional WP:COI here even if I can't prove that outright. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and others. Citobun (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Neunkirchen[edit]

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

Was part of an earlier AfD, which was closed as no consensus, due to there being a mass of articles proposed through the same discussion. Each article needed to be discussed on its own merits. This is a non-notable interchange. Just like tens of thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 13:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Nothing that can't be included in a standard exit list article, if even one of those would stand up on it's own. Transparency note: Copy and pasting this comment across 4 similar AFD's as they all fail for exactly the same reason, can't be arsed to re-word for the same thing! Jeni ^(talk) 17:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) 16:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 03:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was part of an earlier AfD, which was closed as no consensus, due to there being a mass of articles proposed through the same discussion. Each article needed to be discussed on its own merits. This is a non-notable interchange. Just like tens of thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 13:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Nothing that can't be included in a standard exit list article, if even one of those would stand up on it's own. Transparency note: Copy and pasting this comment across 4 similar AFD's as they all fail for exactly the same reason, can't be arsed to re-word for the same thing! Jeni ^(talk) 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter¹²³ (lecture) 16:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 03:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Alzey[edit]

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

This is a non-notable interchange. Just like tens of thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 13:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Nothing that can't be included in a standard exit list article, if even one of those would stand up on it's own. Transparency note: Copy and pasting this comment across 4 similar AFD's as they all fail for exactly the same reason, can't be arsed to re-word for the same thing! Jeni ^(talk) 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) 16:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 03:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Stuhr[edit]

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

Was part of an earlier AfD, which was closed as no consensus, due to there being a mass of articles proposed through the same discussion. Each article needed to be discussed on its own merits. This is a non-notable interchange. Just like tens of thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 13:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Nothing that can't be included in a standard exit list article, if even one of those would stand up on it's own. Transparency note: Copy and pasting this comment across 4 similar AFD's as they all fail for exactly the same reason, can't be arsed to re-word for the same thing! Jeni ^(talk) 17:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter¹²³ (consult) 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #2, #4 (part of a recent burst of attempts to delete articles on notable Kurds). Since the AfD hasn't attracted much in the way of support for the subject, I think there should be no prejudice against good faith renomination, but for now we have no legitimate basis for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalile Jalil[edit]

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

Non notable. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Hassan Rebell (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #2 and #4. This appears to be part of a recent burst of attempts to delete articles on notable Kurds rather than a good-faith nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Nadirov[edit]

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

Non notable engineer. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC Hassan Rebell (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - nom failed to follow WP:BEFORE and search for native language sources. [26],[27][28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak per CSD G1. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirlian Selections[edit]

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

No independent sources at all. Fails WP:GNG No claims to notability in the article Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK #2 and #4. This appears to be part of a recent burst of attempts to delete articles on notable Kurds rather than a good-faith nomination. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Duhoki[edit]

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

Non notable. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Even on Amazon.com no results. Nothing on GNews. Nothing on GBooks either (except Books LLC spam). Hassan Rebell (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are results on Amazon and GBooks under the name Xelîl Duhokî. There is also a corresponding article in the Kurdish Wikipedia. There doesn't appear to be any independent, reliable sources but there are sources in Kurdish so I can't be sure they don't meet WP:Author. Maybe someone who speaks Kurdish can have a look. Sarah-Jane (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- note that nominator has few edits besides listing numerous Kurdish academics for deletion; it looks like a WP:POINT or nationalist dispute. See Special:Contributions/Hassan_Rebell -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discounting the biased canvassing and sockpuppetry, the general consensus is clear that the subject narrowly passes the relevant inclusion guidelines. Der yck C. 17:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benn Jordan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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)).

Unclear where notability is supposed to lie. Apparently a prolific musician although it looks from the refs and the text that this is probably more as a session musicians. None of the refs appear to convey any notability and it fails WP:GNG. Se4veral attempts at speedy deletion by one editor. This discussion may provide a better platform to air relevant views. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article should remain on Wikipedia. There are some sources which establish notability. I added one interview Jordan had with The Chicago Tribune, a mainstream news source, (but Musicchief007 deleted it without explanation before he tagged the article for deletion.) There are third-party reviews available for some of Jordan's individual albums (as The Flashbulb), although I have no opinion on whether those individual album articles remain or not. Air.light (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff promo piecee self-authored by subject and friends e.g. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicchief007 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC) — Musicchief007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than a few links here but nothing for a better article, considering general notability and music notability guidelines. Draft and userfy if needed though, SwisterTwister talk 08:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the above search includes unnecessarily restrictive keywords which limit the number of relevant results. A less biased search reveals many articles and references from numerous independent sources, such as:
- An article in an image-line series about notable users of their popular FL studio software.
- Three articles on TorrentFreak about piracy and music streaming services featuring Benn Jordan.
- An article on HeadphoneCommute which has conducted over 1000 electronica music interviews, reviews and articles since 2008.
- Several other independent reviews, such as 2014 review by Inyourspeakers media, 2012 review by IndieCurrent, and a 2012 Hardscrabble review at Music Review Database.
- A page on BBC.co.uk's music pages after being features in one of their radio shows in 2009.
- A Reddit AMA with approximately 300 participants
- The Flashbulb appears in position 2,895 on a popular artist and album ranking site out of over 83,000 albums ranked independently by 21,000 rankings lists.
- At least 14 tabs contributed by 7 different members at ultimate guitar, and 18 over at 911Tabs.
- Traces of dozens of events at popular venues across multiple countries featuring Benn as the main attraction, most of which are no longer persisted on the original sites themselves.
  — Alainbryden (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been listening to this artist for close to a decade. Heard of him from a friend in California in 2007. The idea that this is just "some local musician" is not accurate.
- He's been featured in articles[34] on torrentfreak.com twice[35]. Featured articles of note: headphonecommute, 2014 sabotagetimes, 2012 Muisc Review Databse, 2012 bio on allmusic calls him "one of the most well-known artists in the American IDM scene", 2015 vapor, 2010 SSGmusic, 2010
- Referenced in meaningful way: completemusicupdate, 2014
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.32.44 (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He is close to passing WP:GNG by virtue of the Chicago Tribune article alone. However, it is only a local newspaper for this artist. Any similar source from outside of Illinois would sway my vote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, the criteria is WP:MUSIC. He needs to meet just one of the 12 criteria there. One such is "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". He has been winner of a London International Awards. So notability is not an issue. What's more concerning is why a deletion notice by a single-purpose vandal account (see [36]) is even being entertained. Greenman (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that these awards are claimed , but I struggled too find an independent ref to confirm this. Can anyone oblige ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Proof of awards at coloribus advertising archive.
  Proof of attribution of music for the award to the Flashbulb on Vapour Music site.
  — Alainbryden (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable enough musician. Deepblue1 (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This should not even be a question. A search for "Ben Jordan" might not result in much, but The Flashbulb is a notable enough musician, with nearly 300k listeners on last.fm. Moreover, the deletion has been proposed by an obvious vandal and a troll. TMladek (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now vandals dare to propose deletions? That fact alone should cancel this AfD. Deepblue1 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: No evidence that these awards exist. No evidence that these awards are indeed notable. Only reference points are to the subject's own web site. In searching for London International Awards, I have found nothing of note. A proper award such as: Brit Awards, Grammy Nods, etc. that were properly sourced would sway my position. Last.fm is an archaic website of little importance which is easily manipulated and hacked by bots. Since there are no independant references to confirm, this article fails WP:MUSIC. I too agree its specious that the Keep votes herein provide no real evidence and are more likely the subject himself or his friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.149.117 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Proof of awards at coloribus advertising archive.
  Proof of attribution of music for the award to the Flashbulb on Vapour Music site.
  — Alainbryden (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know Benn Jordan personally, but as a fan I've given the page an overhaul based on my collection of his works, and cursory google searches. Updates include a dozen or so new references and external links, several of which are from independent new media sources. I've also added some updated facts about his projects in the Chicago community, removed dead links, added his more recent works, re-formatted the releases under different aliases to be less prominent, made the 'musical artist navbox' template consistent with the discography in the article.

Hopefully these improvements will put this matter to rest, along with the clear evidence that the instigator of this whole issue, User:Musicchief007 (contributions - Reported Here), is nothing but a vandal with a personal vendetta against the artist.
Alainbryden (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant enough musician (let alone my favorite). His albums have articles, too. If it's poor enough to qualify for deletion, than edit it so quality isn't as poor. Why is this even up for debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.118.160 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have been listening to his music for years. His main pseudonym being, "The Flashbulb" If you want to find any information regarding the artist beyond his name, that is the name to search for. This is just a couple of people trolling this poor guy to get his page off of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.33.68 (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: not compelling argument for keep. Fails WP:MUSIC. Last fm is a BADCHART under WP:MUSIC. Googled the man and very little came up. How this article and others involving this man survived several years on Wikipedia impugns the integrity of Wikipedia itself which as an editor, I am attempting to do with my vote. I'm sure he is a lovely man though. Maybe he will have a break through hit and win a legitimate award or be a subject of a substantial broadcast as the editor notes and then He should create a single new page limited to notable information. No one gives a damn what hand he uses to play guitar, what disabilities he may or may not have or what sort of environment he lives in. It's not notable and reads like a promo piece. It would be helpful if all parties stop numerous posts on here. Just vote explain it and shut up and move on. It's Wikipedia. There was a world before it and will be one after it as well. — Hannukoivu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC) (UTC). — Hannukoivu (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Musicchief007 (talk • contribs). [reply]
~~DELETE~~: In order for a release to be noted, there must be notablitity for it. It must chart on a valid chart WP:MUSIC. ""Has been the 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", No releases referenced are released on any label of any repute whatsoever, and most are purportedly released on his own label. These do not qualify. Furthermore, award requirements are one of global repute "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, or Choice award." None are claimed nor refereneced. FInally, "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.". The claimed Chicago Paper is not a 'substantional' broadcast segment. Such criteria would be a lead story, not something buried in the depths of an online-only article for local reasons. Finally, Mr. Jordan fails the test of WP:MUSIC as an author and composer: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.".

The article gives vague references of some compositions, which are not sourced, and are thus not singularly notable. Wikipedia is a place of reference for the average person to be able to do a valid search on actually notable persons and topics, from actual noteworthy events - not fringe or downright fraudulent posts. This is not a playground for people such as Benn Jordan and his friends. Not reliable long term user has stated KEEP. All are new or unknown accounts. I do not see compelling reasons that the user Musicchief007 is a troll, nor do I find it relevant in my decision, to wit, that based on the foregoing, this page is to be DELETED as it is a classic example of advert. — Truthbetold123222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC) (UTC).— Truthbetold123222 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Musicchief007 (talk • contribs). [reply]

*DELETE: Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.149.117 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one !vote per account allowed --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was actually his fourth attempt at voting on this page. If one looks at the edit histories of Musicchief007, Truthbetold123222 and 88.194.149.117, there's many similarities. Air.light (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as I believe this German music magazine article and this TorrentFreak article, combined with the Chicago Tribune article, suffices to push him just over the WP:GNG threshold. However, I see that there also seems to be a walled garden of another 9 or so articles related to his works, none of which seem to assert sufficient notability for keeping, and which should probably all be deleted, even if this article passes review. -- The Anome (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Flashbulb's last.fm page shows his tracks played 14.5 Million times by 291.7 thousand unique listeners. This only includes registered users of last.fm, and does not include other listeners. For comparison, reference Jonathan_Coulton, a significant artist whose work is self-released or released through his own label. Coulton's last.fm page shows his tracks being played 8.3 million times by 338.1 thousand unique listeners. Subgeek (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More information: This article on Electronic_Musician lists The Flashbulb (Jordan's main musical project) as a Native_Instruments sponsored musician in the second paragraph. The event toured three cities as stated in this clip from a 2006 issue of Remix Magazine. Native Instruments is a major manufacturer of electronic instruments and software. Subgeek (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
bandisintown has a list of some past tour dates showing that The Flashbulb has toured outside his area in addition to the Native Instruments Kore tour. Subgeek (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deletion request is obvious trolling with the added complexity of an artist that prefers not to do many mainstream interviews. Both his | Chicago Tribune and aforementioned Sun Times pieces took the cover of the weekend editions of 2 very mainstream media sources. It cannot be linked directly, but even his Spotify plays/rankings for his top songs double and triple similar artists who are friendlier with the media like Squarepusher or Venetian Snares. If we're erasing a decade of users' work creating this page, then we should be removing a lot of other well-known electronic artists from Wikipedia under this precedent. If the content of the page is weak, then update it. But removing a page of an artist with millions of music streams and Youtube views, let alone 20-something physical albums is just going to continue this troll's cat and mouse game. Remove the tag and lock the page already, this is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.68.114 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator. Musicchief007, Truthbetold12322, and Hannukolvu have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musicchief007.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Burgess (politician)[edit]

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

WP:Notability issues. RugbyXIII (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest notability from a web search (appreciate that not all sources for things can be found online, but if there is nothing standing out about a living person then it's a fair presumption that there's not a fat lot offline). Article appears to have been created with a COI anyway. Jeni ^(talk) 17:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mayors of places this size can meet WP:NPOL #3 if they can be substanced and sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG — but a city has to be considerably larger than 28K before a mayor gets an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. But the sourcing here isn't adequate, and there's no substantive content here beyond "he exists, he went to high school, he started a business, he became mayor, the end" — the substance necessary to get a mayor into Wikipedia would involve writing and sourcing content about things he did as the mayor, not unsourced background information about his personal life. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayor of city of under 30,000 without other references to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse breathing[edit]

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

I think this is either a hoax or some fringe stuff which shouldn't be present on Wikipedia. A Google Scholar search shows nothing, and Google search only shows some random websites which are not WP:RS. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep tag unreferenced, but I see this term used in tao/yoga publications in a cursory GBooks search: [37], and it seems to be widely used there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Piotrus. I wonder how I missed this in my Google Scholar search. I withdraw the AfD. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kali (2016)[edit]

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

Shooting didn't start yet and source is also empty. Kitcher45 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

and: WP:INDAFD: "Prem" "Kali film" "CR Manohar" "Shivarajkumar" "Sudeep"

Delete per being TOO SOON. The source link noted by Kitcher45 was easy enough to fix, but the thing only just had its title launch. As topic sources are available, we can allow a return as soon as we confirm filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MQS - Way toosoon at the moment, Can easily be WP:UNDELETED in 2016. –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Baghel[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NACTOR The Avengers 05:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 03:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has played minor & supporting roles in only 2 films. Most search results are social websites and non-RSes. No significant results on Google News. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although referenced, notability does not pass the relevant notability guideline -- samtar ^whisper 16:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkvilla[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB and no info available in any WP:RS to check if WP:ORG passes, which anyways seems doubtful. The website is a gossip column on Indian film industry and run from USA, based on claims made in the article. Also, seems to be edited primarily by WP:SPA and COI editor. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies -related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I found several of their own stories, but not stories particularly about them, so delete for now until a better article is available. Notifying taggers Blackguard SF and KH-1. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAILN. One source mentions Pinkvilla, but doesn't indicate it's anything more than a blog. Fails general notability. Blackguard 08:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NWEB. -KH-1 (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Public sector ethics. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics in public administration[edit]

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

It doesn't look and read like an encyclopedia article. I think it should be deleted. Kitcher45 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found links to suggest a better article could be made but I'm not currently seeing it and there's certainly been enough time for better to happen. Notifying 2009 tagger RHaworth. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public sector ethics which is at least cited. Ethics in public administration contains only one very poor reference, added by an SPA back in September, who also added most of the uncited content in a single edit; the reference appears to be WP:COI to boot. The article was in fact a bit better before that addition, but brief and totally uncited. Given the strong overlap, and the not unreasonable alternative title, a redirect seems the right solution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public sector ethics. While the version of the article nominated doesn't look and read encyclopedic and is poorly sourced, it is most definitely not a subject of WP:Original research. A quick search will show hundreds of textbooks available from Amazon. I find the subject WP:Notable because of all this academic coverage of the subject. A Redirect is appropriate since a very-similar, well-sourced, peer-reviewed article already exists. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 World University Football Cup[edit]

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

Tournament apparently didn't pushed through Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the comment that you made Matt294069 is coming 01:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do agree for the deletion of the article. - User:Pinespunned (Talk) - 07:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep considering villages articles are almost always kept (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Čelopek, Zvornik[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable, unnecessary standalone page. Contains nothing to justify its existence as standalone article. Quis separabit? 03:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Would appear to be a separate, recognised village within the municipality of Zvornik (all villages are within one municipality or another - they're like parishes in the UK, for instance) and not really a suburb of Zvornik as such. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Other articles are better fleshed out ie fr:Čelopek (Zvornik). Nom should have followed WP:BEFORE and checked interlanguage links. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western Ground[edit]

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

Has not hosted anything higher than Under-19 state cricket matches. JTtheOG (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability requirements
Delete - fails WP:GNG, doesn't appear to have hosted any professional matches of any sort Spiderone 08:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - can't see how GNG can be satisfied when it has hosted no notable level of competition. Fenix down (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2008 Mumbai attacks. Delete, merge and keep are about evenly divided. I must assign less weight to the "keep" opinions because they do not address the policy-based reasons for deletion, namely, that we are not a memorial and topics must meet notability requirements. On the other hand, two "delete" opinins are similarly poorly reasoned. On balance, though, we do have a (policy-based) consensus to not keep the article, but not quite to delete it. The compromise is a redirect back to the main article, so that editors can figure out among themselves what, if anything, to merge back. Sandstein 09:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks

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

In the wake of this discussion regarding a split article for the November 2015 Paris attacks, I thought I'd reintroduce this. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:N is in violation with this article and probably aside from the government employees, none of the victims seem notable enough to warrant an article of their own, even a multiple-person article such as this. Parsley Man (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how many of those Gov't employees only have articles because they were a victim of this attack? All those articles are now questionable. I don't see 343 separate articles for every fire-fighter that died in the WTC. - ^theWOLFchild 21:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I don't question notability of all those officers as they have been posthumously been given various military decorations by Government. Also, a few of them passed GNG even before their death but simple didn't have their article because we lack editors working in this field. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so according to that logic, as long as we have editors willing to do so, WP can just fill up with articles about people who have been mentioned in the media once or twice? Or have been part of a notable event? Would you advocate the creation of 343 separate articles for every fire-fighter that died in 9/11? I'm sure we could find each of their names in a source somewhere. - ^theWOLFchild 13:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I didn't say once or twice, I said GNG. Anyways, that's a debate to have when you raise individual AfDs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said "probably", though. I didn't say such articles were warranted, and I wouldn't support them if they were created anyway. Parsley Man (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as argued in previous AfD. Also to note, the article has only one table of nationality-wise casualties that is not present in the main 2008 Mumbai attacks article. Rest all is redundant for repeating. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever isn't already in 2008 Mumbai attacks back; the main article is not large enough to justify a split per WP:PAGESIZE. ansh 666 04:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. This sure has the feel of a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions closed as "no consensus" (like the previous AFD for this article) can properly be re-opened. Rest assured that your feel doesn't play a role in this. LjL (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"YOUR FEEL" what the... Bod (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Nom is working to keep that article, and that User talk:LjL argues that it should set a precedent for all terrorism articles, yes, this does appear to violate WP:POINT. Otherrs are free to disagree, but please WP:AGF. Do we have WP:NOSNARK?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those who tell others to follow WP:AGF are often most at fault of not following it. ansh 666 00:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are alleging that others are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (that's what that page says, you know) when they legitimately nominate articles for deletion with some relatively widespread support for it, yet you invoke WP:AGF at the same time? Your behavior is puzzling. LjL (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD closed less than 2 months ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It closed as no consensus, though, so it's not inappropriate to nominate it again. ansh 666 01:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just very quick, WP:POINTy, and likely to end as no consensus for the 3rd time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea how you assess "consensus"... ansh 666 02:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, and restore the list of names somewhat arbitrarily deleted fomr the article back in 2008. I looked at that old list, and I believe that it shows the extent to which we give WP:UNDUE and render articles POV by reporting casualties as mere statistics, while the murderers are treated as individual human beings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NLIST, such list of random non-notable names should not be included. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2008 Mumbai attacks as there doesn't seem to be a need for this relatively short article (which could be shortened further) to stand alone. Of course, it is to be ruled out to expand this article to list victims individually, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (just in case anyone was pondering that, and I know some are). LjL (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - show me a list all 3000 victims of 9/11 and I might change my mind... - ^theWOLFchild 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor a list of indiscriminate information. A list of non-notable people has no place on the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 23:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (with parent 2008 Mumbai attacks ) –—- There is enough here for an article of its own and the number of casualties is also high enough to warrant an article. To delete this and keep the recent "Paris" victims, speaks to ethnocentriciy, and must be avoided... easily in this case because the article already exists. Bod (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mix views related to other articles over here. Gauge this article on its own merits. The "enough" that's here in the article is already there in the main article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my previous comments. Enough with the WP:POINTY nomination of this article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous comment as in in the previous Afd? That was "Keep but improve - the wall of text of names needs to be broken down. Equivalent to other articles like List of people killed during Euromaidan." I fail to see any rationale for keeping the article in this comment of yours. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the people citing WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) may want to actually read that guideline carefully, especially the #Important note section at the bottom. The guideline doesn't say what y'all think it does. ansh 666 05:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT: "do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

respondIn this case the WP:POINTyness comes of a sort of WP:GAME wherein editors try to win by making others weary of a topic, leaving what are now 3 lengthy discussions on almost the same question to a passionate few. Repeating an AFD after less than 2 months can be a form of WP:GAME. After all, when WP feels too much like a battleground, some people may double down, but others will back away, leave a topic, or just leave.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly doubting your level of reading comprehension now... ansh 666 14:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, what I'm getting weary from is your continuous, very long comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks and elsewhere, which dominate the page(s) to the point of making it hard to just read through other people's stances on keeping or deleting. Just look at the page, and tell me if it's not that way. You may want to take your own advice on WP:BATTLEGROUND and being overly passionate. (Also, you can keep saying that repeating the AFD after 2 months is WP:GAME, but we can keep saying you are totally incorrect because the AFD ended as "no consensus", so you may as well stop calling that "gaming" before it's taken as a personal accusation.) LjL (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' This page provides non-trivial information on the casualties of this attack, which was compiled from many different sources, rather than merely a list. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really the issue here - it's more that it's almost an exact duplicate of what's on the main article. ansh 666 23:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful/different to the main Mumbai attacks page, per above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bearing in mind that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the article for 'casualties of the 2015 Paris attacks' was deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Minooei[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Multiple very brief mentions at best. Declined at AfC, unilaterally moved to mainspace by creator, blocked sockpuppet, Alishhsreen. Alerting those involved in AfC and looked at its notability previously, SwisterTwister, Dodger67, Fylbecatulous, Anne Delong. Boleyn (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)I'm resubmitting the pings as I personally never got this one so I'm not sure if the others got them as well. SwisterTwister talk 08:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches quickly found nothing better than a few passing News mentions. I also have to thank Boleyn for notifying me of this as I'm always willing to be notified of articles where I can comment including if I have commented through AfC and the like. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 08:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears a desperate attempt to fill article with sources that are too close to subject (or produced by him). Both NY Times articles have essentially the same biography from an unidentified source and he gets barely a mention in a review about another artist. We have online communities and notices from venues. The All About Jazz sources are about Hafez Modrizadeh and just mention that our subject is a participant playing the sanfur. He just has no individual buzz in the media. If articles could survive on the basis of association with other musicians and aside mentions, I could have created an article about the almost famous drummer who taught me to play... thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 13:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N-Sider[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NWEB. The1337gamer (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its coverage was cited a few times in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but in nothing more than passing mentions and in no depth about the publication itself. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 04:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and czar. -- ferret (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as my searches simply found no better coverage for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor's marriage[edit]

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source I could find was this news source, which isn't enough in itself to pass NBOOK. If there are sources in another language then I could be swayed to change my opinion, but offhand this looks to be non-notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as article has been created/deleted a number of times; see creators history here [38] and this [39]. Article appears to have been created as an advertisement and promotion for the author (creator and author has same name). I have removed the links to author and other websites from the lead. Still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, a googlesearch brings up nothing that contributes to its notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails every Wikipedia element of notability. Shearonink (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anisur Khuda-Bukhsh[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. The only independent source that names him is Scroll.in, describing an industry event of no actual significance. His claim to fame is a paper from a dozen years ago purporting to show that homeopathic arsenic can cure arsenic poisoning. This has not been replicated. That does not necessarily disqualify him from notability - Jacques Benveniste is known primarily for his fraudulent work on homeopathy - but in Benveniste's case we have non-trivial coverage in substantial sources, whereas here we have only clickbait. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud? Guy, your defamation is awful. The Benveniste experiments never shown fraud: Mr. Randi said: "Their report avoided any charge of fraud". Guy, Wikipedia need bans the pseudoskeptik liars. 67.171.65.25 (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meets WP:PROF. His h-index is 32, which is pretty high, and he holds the Emeritus professor position in India, which is the one of the highest academic positions in India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Emeritus_Professors_in_India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.65.23 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added few external links like an article in New Scientist, which is a prestigious science magazine, covering his research, and a very recent (2015, Nov) mention in Nature Asia. With an h-index of 32 and a research mention as recent as November, 2015, doesn't seem to me that his "claim to fame" is just one "paper from a dozen years ago". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.65.23 (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 67.171.65.23 (come create an account and join us!) -- the references to the quality of work in New Scientist and Nature Asia check out. AGF on the high h-index, especially given the difficulty in establishing notability in Indian research sources and WP:BIAS this looks like a clear pass to me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the ip and Michael Scott Cuthbert's analysis. Meets ACADEMIC/SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion is split as to how WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME should apply in this case. Der yck C. 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Shah (businessman)[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME. I did find a couple sources Chicago Tribune, WSJ that talk about him, but not seeing enough on to pass GNG, apart from the Danish coverage on the same event. Article contains numerous POV issues as well. Based on talk, editor recreated this page. Jppcap (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there's hardly much to suggest even minimally general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I argued on the talk-page, a person who is suspected of frauding 0.5 % of a country’s GDP should be considered notable. Please note that though he is only a suspect, he most likely will never be convicted in a trial due to the lack of extradition agreements. There are plenty of Danish sources. Gloegg~enwiki (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. This is a biography of one investigation. This is a criminal biography where the alleged crime is not yet proven. The limited likelihood of a trial does not change this. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was already notable enough to support an article before the fraud investigation. Just for the heck of it, I checked, and sure enough, Bernie Madoff (like Shah a financier/philanthropist of long-standing notability) only got an article on Dec. 11, 2008.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per @Gene93k:. Parsley Man (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As usual, I would appreciate if this were relisted again for better attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Nisbett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thomas Norman Nisbett

Articles for deletion/Thomas Nisbett (2nd nomination)

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

This was previously nominated for deletion on notability and WP:V grounds. The citations included are either broken, or do not support any of the claims that would arguably make this person notable. There's no support whatsoever for the assertion that he was awarded an OBE, which is the type of thing that should be easily verifiable. JCO312 (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is easily verifiable by searching the London Gazette. Where else did you expect to find it other than the official record of such things? While an OBE does not provide inherent notability, I think that if he was also the first black Anglican priest in Bermuda he's probably sufficiently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem though, when you search the London Gazette there is no record of an OBE.JCO312 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back, just saw your reference. For whatever reason when I plugged the search term in I didn't find that. JCO312 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Always best to think around the subject when searching the LG, whose search engine isn't always 100% reliable. I searched for "Norman Nisbett" instead of his full name and got it first time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- On first reading, I thought he was a NN clergyman. Getting an OBE is not necessarily sufficient to make a person WP-notable though those awarding it clearly thought him notable: you do not get an award for nothing. When I read it again and realised that he was the first Black Anglican priest in his country, I thought again. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Little article change since the last afd ended keep. I read the first afd but didn't vote that time, same now, no vote from me and it'll end keep most likely. Weak refs but the OBE and first black clergyman etc most likely mean something... Szzuk (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources about the subject:
1. Arandjelovic, Nadia (2012-11-15). "'This is where you belong'". The Royal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
  The article notes:
  Canon Thomas Nisbett would certainly be welcomed with open arms into the local Anglican clergy these days, but 50 years ago was a completely different story.
  In 1962, having finished his theology studies at Codrington College in Barbados, he couldn’t find anyone to sponsor his ordination.
  His mentor Bishop Anthony Williams, who encouraged him to go to school, resigned without giving Canon Nisbett the consent necessary to be ordained into the church.
  ...
  But in a stroke of divine intervention, the Bishop of Barbados Lewis Evans went out on a limb to sponsor him in exchange for two years of work in the Caribbean country.
  Canon Nisbett went on to make Bermuda history by becoming the Island’s first black Anglican rector and serving as chaplain to Governor Edwin Leather.
2. Westhead, Sara (2012-11-10). "Diocese launches Canon Nisbett lecture series". The Royal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
  The article notes:
  As a part of his duties, the Bishop will also inaugurate a lecture series to honour the lifelong work and achievements of Canon Thomas Nisbett in a special service at the Cathedral on Saturday, November 17 at 3pm. During the message in that service, the Bishop is expected to expound on the Bible and its place in Anglican Theology.
  “The lecture series is in honour of Canon Thomas and Winifred Nisbett,” Rev Nick Dill, priest in charge for the Anglican parish of Pembroke. “Canon Nisbett has the honour of being the first black Anglican clergy, the first black canon and the first black rector. He has broken through a number of the various barriers with tremendous grace, seeking matters of faith rather than matters of politics, and helped temper others who have a slightly different way about them.”
3. "Profile of Cannon Thomas Nisbett". Anglican Church of Bermuda. Archived from the original on 2007-10-07. Retrieved 2007-10-07.
4. "O.B.E." The London Gazette. 1991-12-30. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
  The source notes:
  O.B.E.
  To be Ordinary Officers of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order
  The Reverend Canon Thomas Norman NISBETT. For services to the community in Bermuda.
Cunard (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Letters of Iranian Supreme leader to youth in the West[edit]

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

The subject is not notable. There are already two separate articles related to khamenei's letters. There's no need to have such an article. Mhhossein (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Addressee of these letters are clear and we can not merge them. It is better that the article merge to second letter. Saff V. (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mhhossein. There is not much to merge as proposed above; pretty much all of the information is already present at either To the Youth in Europe and North America or To the Youth in Western Countries. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Not independently notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Currently incomprehensible. What it does refer to is nothing significant. It didn't trigger riots for example or even make any sort of ripple in the media etc. There's nothing to it. Rayman60 (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect if there's anything beneficial to move. SwisterTwister talk 08:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant WP:CFORK of To the Youth in Europe and North America or To the Youth in Western Countries, which are the better articles. Sandstein 09:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Muhammad Dilawar Khanji. The consensus finds that this article is a duplicate of Muhammad Dilawar Khanji. The discussion is closed without prejudice to nominating Muhammad Dilawar Khanji for deletion on notability or other grounds. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Muhammad Dilawar Khanji[edit]

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

~~This Dilawar Khanji may not have notability The Avengers 15:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 03:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Muhammad Dilawar Khanji; one of the two articles has the birthdate wrong, and I'm betting on this one. Speedily redirect since there appears to be nothing worth merging. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the photograph is the only thing that appears to be worth merging. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McIlvenna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AFD (2nd nomination)
Delete: non-notable paramilitary -- no notability re circumstances of life/death and no more eligible for a standalone article than any of the hundreds of other paramilitaries killed in The Troubles. Hard to believe only two editors (including nominator) had anything to say, during 1st nomination, which resulted in nonadmin closure due to lack of consensus. Hopefully that won't recur. Quis separabit? 15:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else cares to participate, yet again, this AFD should be regarded as unanimous. Quis separabit? 03:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources on the page is from a reliable, secondary sources. none supports notability. Some are deadlinks. That said, I searched and found a lone mention of a man who is probably him, but it was in a book (Lost Lives: The Stories of the Men, Women and Children who Died as a Result of the Northern Ireland Troubles, by David McKittrick, Seamus Kelters, Brian Feeney) that appears to list every single person who died in The Troubles. This particular one was a non-notable militant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the bulk of the sources used do not appear to be reliable (mainly memorial websites) and a Google search doesn't turn up much else other than passing mentions so probably fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:NOTMEMORIAL likely also applies. Anotherclown (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't believe that the subject meets the notability guidelines. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam McAllister (photographer)[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. McAllister is an amateur photographer who has won a single award of questionable notability. Lots of noise in the Irish press about the overall awards, but only mention in passing of McAllister. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, this is a far cry from "significant coverage." ubiquity (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability criteria. Snappy (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no RS coverage ww2censor (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus following relist is to keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Schaffert[edit]

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

BLP with lack of secondary sources. May need evaluating against WP:PROF. Appears borderline N with COI promo (likely undisclosed autobiog + obvious meat as main contribs). Widefox; talk 14:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know a lot about publication patterns in this field, but it sounds like a case could be made for WP:PROF criterion 1 with an h-index of 20 and at least five papers cited more than 100 times. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What he's notable for is something he's no longer doing, academic research, but notability is not temporary. And I agree with EricEnfermero that the highly-cited papers (and ten-year test-of-time award) are enough for WP:PROF#C1. His position as CTO of Redlink and his current position at Google are probably not notable but that doesn't matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all of this seems to become notable and acceptable, satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. Surely not a deletion priority at this time, SwisterTwister talk 08:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lidhar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source available appears to be this, which is known to be unreliable per discussions at WT:INB and which, even if it were reliable, is ambiguous re: whether the alleged community is really distinguishable from its alleged Jat brethren or merely a geographical descriptor deployed by the author. Sitush (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a little tricky because there also seems to be a place called Lidhar, and results for the two are hard to separate, but I cannot find reliable secondary coverage. The book Sitush mentions does not strike me as reliable, and the numerous website sources are dodgy in the extreme. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if the source was reliable, there is nothing preventing this from being included in the Jat people article. Too little material for a stand-alone article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actrius[edit]

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

No evidence of notability -- Rotten tomatoes shows zero reviews [40] NE Ent 23:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are reviews, just nothing reliable in English.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Actually there are some English language sourcing added, but notability is not dependent on sources having to be in English. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current references are IMDB and a dead link and I'm personally unable to use Spanish references -- if someone can find / add one I'll be happy to withdraw the nom. NE Ent 00:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: dead link corrected and sources now added. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to quote two reviews, one from The Guardian and one from Evening Standard. There's also this (albeit brief) review here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as now corrected and sourced to show a notability to Catalan cinema. Certainly more can (and should) be done, but no need now to delete. NE Ent? CNMall41? Erik? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be sufficient for sourcing and international screenings, considering that Catalan cinema is probably not a major industry. Dl2000 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zekeriya Beşirli[edit]

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

I don't see any claims of notability in the article, and I can't find information regarding this individual in reliable sources. Perhaps they can be found in Turkish-language publications, which I am likely to have missed. If so, it needs to be demonstrated he has accomplished more than "wrote a couple of books". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and restart if and whenever it better satisfies the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will move to userspace upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Gondrom[edit]

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

BLP failing WP:GNG - no secondary sources, combined with promo SPA creator, prev deleted years ago for promo, salting is an option...
PROD removal is unconvincing
- from WP:SPA editor presum undisclosed COI "this article is in line with other articles on IETF leaders for documentation, I keep it intentionally minimal, similar to Russ Housley, Harald Tveit Alvestrand. It is not intended as Promotion for OWASP or IETF, simply as neutral reference"
  - They also appear to be borderline N, or non-notable (COI and/or promo), and WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Widefox; talk 21:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Hello, I am new to Wiki. Only write little text, to try out. I think this article is in line with other articles on IETF leaders for documentation, I make it intentionally simple,minimal. I used other pages as idea how to write. So I write similar to pages on Russ Housley, Harald Tveit Alvestrand and others. Maybe this is not good way? It is not intended as Promotion for OWASP or IETF, simply as neutral reference. I think the leaders are good to know because they are responsible. And they also do many good things for the Internet. So I think it is good to mention them.

And I think both organisations for IETF and OWASP are important and should be mentioned in Wiki. I see that you want to delete the OWASP page as well. I do not think this is right. But maybe Wiki pages do not mention organisations anymore? Maybe you can help improve the text of the page?

I do not understand the text of "no secondary sources" or "salting is an option"? Can you maybe help improve the page?

Many greetings, Xu (Xhowiet)

Read WP:OTHERSTUFF. You have a COI for OWASP, correct? See WP:COI. Widefox; talk 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG, and obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. sst✈^(discuss) 15:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he seems to have gotten some coverage for his work, yes, but there's nothing to suggest better solid independent notability for an article....so delete for now at best and draft and userfy only if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The administrative positions listed in the article are not automatically notable, but could be notable per WP:GNG if enough in-depth reliable third-party coverage specifically about Gondrom or his accomplishments could be located. However the sources currently listed in the article are not good enough and web searching didn't turn up anything better. I also didn't see enough academic impact for his publications to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hannigan[edit]

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

I don't see evidence of notability for this person online. One or more of the companies, perhaps, but when I look for him in conjunction with insurance, and when I look at all but the first of the independent sources given in the article, he is only quoted, not a topic of the coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy if needed later (perhaps not now as I seeing nothing to suggest better soon) - Locally known businessman and my searches found nothing better than some local coverage. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and do not userify or move to draft space--there is little potential for an article: there does not seem to be any plausible notability ``

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association. Well I never usually close on one !vote but the discussion's not amazing and I think relisting it won't achieve sod all either. Seeing as the nom's not replied I'm just closing as Merge (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bay State Conference[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

High school sports leagues are rarely notable and this does not seem to be an exception. Subject matter fails WP:GNG and any other notability measure I can find. References appear to be local in nature and/or not third party and have no measure to establish notability. This article was deleted on November 3, 2013 based on the PROD. Approximately a year later it was restored without a reason given and has had several edits since then. It seems to still fail the reason given in the PROD, but because editors have been involved in the article I believe that a discussion is warranted. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: according to the Navbox at the bottom, there may be other similar articles that would also fall under this discussion. I have not reviewed those myself (and therefore express no opinion), but other editors may want to consider them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, the umbrella association for Massachusetts high school sports. Any sources fall under WP:ROUTINE and (speaking as a Massachusetts resident who follows high school sports and reads newspapers) are casual mentions at best. Ravenswing 19:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Powerful Stuff (public information film)[edit]

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

It definitely exists, but is nowhere near close to meeting WP:NFILM. I can't find a single reliable source. It is also listed at http://pif.wikia.com/wiki/Powerful_Stuff and I think this is one case where WP:OTHERWIKIS would apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khror[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find a single reliable source that mentions this community. Unsourced for years. A prior PROD was refused as "disruptive". Sitush (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worse than not meeting WP:GNG is not meeting WP:V as this article does: I can't find any sources on GBooks that discuss the Khror. If sources exist, the author should have cited them. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Searching on google, google news, highbeam and google books, I could not find any sources outside Wikipedia and mirror/copy websites that mention this clan. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" does not actually address the arguments for deletion. Sandstein 09:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeimeson Saudino[edit]

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

All current references consist of only WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject on MMA sports sites, still no evidence of non-trivial notability in independent reliable secondary sources. That he competed as a mixed martial artist does not by itself qualify him as notable. Are there other sources that do more than mention his stats? KDS4444^Talk 14:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I could find no significant independent coverage of him to show he meets WP:GNG. However, he does meet the current criteria at WP:NMMA--though not the proposed new criteria at WT:MMA. Therefore, I am siding with the GNG over the SNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sticking to guidelines as they are currently written helps to limit debates from turning into emotional arguments. This article may be cited as a great reason to revise the current guidelines for WP:MMABIO/WP:NMMA, but until they are revised this article does meet them. Kevlar (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage at all of this person except for links to his fight records at various sources. WP:GNG is the important criteria for notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NoRMA[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources, seems to be WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Google Books gives plenty of reliable sources, see e.g. [41] or search, however, I do not see a single source which has more than just a definition.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love bracelet (Cartier)[edit]

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

WP:PRODUCT. A specific article for product might not be required as it may be covered (if notable) into the article on company. Also this does not seems to be a very notable product with almost no independent sources telling all good & bad aspects of the product. Article seems more like a promotional page using wiki for advertisement. Shekhar 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Delete. Individual pages are made for notable specific technologies, appliances, works, that sort of thing. This suggests a fan creation, or as you suggested a corporate creation. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Wikipedia is constantly misused for corporate promotions as articles in it are ranked 1 in Google search. Such promotional articles degrade wiki's as well as Google's reputation.--Shekhar 06:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and improve, or maybe merge and redirect. I can understand the concerns raised above about promotional content. On the other hand, there is legitimate evidence for the long term notability of this product line, such as this 2006 New York Times article ("the most successful collection in Cartier’s history"). A possible alternative would be to merge some of the content from this page, with independent sourcing such the Times article, to the Timeline section of Cartier (jeweler); but ultimately there may be more valid and sourceable content than will fit neatly there. (The article Cartier Tank presents a similar problem.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm leaning towards improving and keeping myself. From what I can see via articles like this Vogue article, this Express article, and this Town & Country article, the bracelet is considered to be quite iconic. The Daily Mail also did one of their pieces on it and while I consider the DM to be about as reliable as a rowboat with a hole in it, it's still considered to be a RS for the most part on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Arabic Technical Transliteration System[edit]

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

No notability, no sources, looks like an original research, nobody knows if it really exists. Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bikdash Arabic Transliteration Rules[edit]

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

Self-promoting, no notability, no independent sources, looks like an original research. Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 2:1, but the one "keep" isn't very convincing. Sandstein 09:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PropertyGuru Malaysia[edit]

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

not notable, promotional, and cannot be verified. The only actually accessible sites are the company's own pages, and its self-writen description on Bloomberg. Everything else is a dead link. (ref 8 is a specialist paid site, but it looks like it too would be a directory entry) DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- cannot be verified
- promotional
  - Personally I find it informative. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

I've already commented on the problems of some of these sites. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Being promotional is not an argument for deletion and there are no other arguments that support deletion. Renamed to "Air displacement plethysmography". (non-admin closure) Yash ! 09:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whole-body air displacement plethysmography[edit]

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

This article is not an encyclopedic entry, but ultimately an advertisement for a commercial product. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article describes a properly-cited clinical technique with multiple reliable sources. It is therefore notable regardless of the apparent COI of the article's author and the fact that the two models of equipment mentioned are made by the same company. Clearly this feels somewhat uncomfortable but the topic is encyclopedic nonetheless. Someone did give the author a COI notice a year after he wrote the article; and as it happens he did contribute to related topics (not products) as well. I can't say I like it much but it's within the rules. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite a few hits on Google Scholar, including reviews. I do confess that I searched for air displacement plethysmography, which IMO should be the title; the interwiki links also don't use the "whole-body" prefix or tranlations thereof. So perhaps also a move to Air displacement plethysmography? - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. We can keep the "whole-body" bit as a redirect to the shorter title after this AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altiplano Plate[edit]

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

Tectonic zone rarely referred as a tectonic plate. Plate tectonics does not apply very well to zones of orogenic deformation, it can explain orogenic deformation but orogenic deformation can itself not be described by plate tectonics. Only one source refer to it. See by yourself in google scholar. Sietecolores (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apart from similar entries on Spanish and Portuguese WP, all I can find on the interwebs to support the existence of an "Altiplano plate" is this map on Commons. But where is that from? Commons has no "reliable sources" rule. Other mentions of "Altiplano plate" are misprints or mistranslations of "plateau": Altiplano itself, as well as referring to the Andean zone, can be a general term for "plateau". We need input from a geologist: Noyster (talk), 11:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guidelines: Bird (2003), the only paper about it, is a primary source, secondary sources (like textbooks or literature reviews) are needed to establish notability. Note that there are lot of Wikipedia articles about microplates that are thin on references other than Bird (2003), including Futuna Plate, Banda Sea Plate, Caroline Plate, Maoke Plate, etc., these should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. No opinion on the science itself, but new ideas need to show some evidence of wider commentary by the scientific community before they become Wikipedia articles. Geogene (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while Bird 2003 is technically a secondary source, it suffers from WP:FRINGE issues. For what it is worth, neither sciendirect.com nor google scholar yields any relevant search results for "Altiplano plate" (WP:GOOGLEHITS applies, but still, one would expect research papers to be indexed online). Tigraan (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of it being taken up by other geologists. Mikenorton (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waylander (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Certainly time for another AfD as my searches found nothing better than some passing mentions and even the listed sources are simply passing mentions themselves. The first AfD comments mentioned the label being notable but from what I've understood, it seems more like an obscure independent label which I've now PRODed as well after finding no better improvement. Notifying the only still active commenter Stifle. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Bio and review at Allmusic, this from Blabbermouth.net, but not much else found. I am aware, however, that some metal bands get considerable coverage in metal magazines without much appearing online (although the 'reviews' section of the band's website doesn't look promising), so am open to keeping this if more can be found. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NMG#5 as per last time. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stifle and Blackmetalbaz at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waylander (band), who wrote that the band passes WP:MUSIC by having albums on Century Media, Listenable and Blackend, all of which are notable.
Here is a source about the subject:
- Patterson, Dayal (2013). Black Metal: Evolution of the Cult. New York: Feral House. p. 410. ISBN 1936239760. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
  The book notes:
  Though Norway dominated folk black metal during the nineties, Ireland, another country with a rich history of folklore and folk music, also made something of a name for itself during this decade. Primordial, Cruachan, and Waylander are three respected Irish acts offering folk-influenced metal compositions, though it is undoubtedly Primordial who have maintained the closest relationship to black metal, to the extent that 1995 debut Imrama had only a few musical and thematic hints toward folk content.
  Although this is a passing mention, that the author called "Waylander" a "respected Irish act" that offered "folk-influenced metal compositions" strongly indicates that the band likely has received significant coverage in reliable offline metal magazines.
Cunard (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/speedy delete as an article created by a blocked sockpuppet. If anyone wants to work on this I'm willing to send a copy to their userspace, but I'd recommend that this go through AfC offhand to ensure that it's notable. A search brought up very little. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday: Kimmie Blanco Reloaded[edit]

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

Unremarkable recording, PROD tag was removed without reason, no sources, looking shows 100k were sold. The links in the chronology are misleading, and I removed the album image as it wasn't this title. In a nutshell, this mix tape exists, but that doesn't make it notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This fails WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CrawlTrack[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. This was quickly prodded after its creation, deprodded by the creator and nobody followed up on this - I think it's time to delete this software spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – yet another article about non-notable software. sst✈^(discuss) 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing at all to suggest even minimal better notability and improvement and, I would have to see if I had actually bookmarked this for nominating for deletion as well. Either way, there's nothing to suggest an obviously better article here. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 14 December 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) 16:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molez[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no in-depth hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. And no major reviews listed in MobyGames or anywhere else online. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 06:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches simply found even minimally better coverage for a better notable article. Notifying video games users who participated at these AfDs NinjaRobotPirate, Esquivalience and Salvidrim in case they're not aware of this nomination. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see coverage in reliable sources. Like Czar, I'm certainly willing to change my vote if someone finds non-English sources. I did a Google search for .fi sources, but it came up nearly empty. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG, not to mention there's virtually no content present to begin with... Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits in WP:VG's reliable source custom search (Disregard comment sections), and only hits in WP:VG's situation source custom source are Giant Bomb's own wiki entries. Most Google (non-directory) results seem to only mention it in context of Liero being a clone, and no hits in Google Books. -- ferret (talk)
Soft delete as any self-published game with no coverage is non-notable. The official website says "MoleZ became almost legendary, at least in Finland ...", and this game was published in 1997, so I am voting soft delete until someone can provide compelling evidence towards notability. Esquivalience ^t 02:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby Bess[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the qualifications for notability or significance. While links have been added to the page, they are simply to articles published by the subject on online publications. There does not appear to be appropriate reference to natable reviews that would indicate a high enough level of significance to meet Wikipedia's eligibility. NB: Article originally nominated by Ksoze1 without following proper procedure. This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best in any case as the current coverage is suggesting of any obvious better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like a mostly self-published writer and has not yet achieved adequate independent notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khel Prashal Stadium[edit]

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

Has not hosted any first-class, List A or T20 matches. Hasn't hosted anything higher than U-19 matches between states. JTtheOG (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to Zeferu K-570. The consensus is that the aircraft itself is more notable and the article should be renamed and restructured to reflect that. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 22:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asmelash Zeferu[edit]

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

This living person has attracted wide media attention. This is the reason I have declined the WP:A7. In my opinion, this article fails the test of WP:BLP1E, as Mr Zeferu has only "made the news" for his home-made aircraft. As always, please prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he successfully flies his aeroplane in the future, he would be the world's first to do so. He apparently made it out of Youtube tutorials, which is quite amazing. Maybe this isn't enough, perhaps? I'd continue to search for sources. Mrkenjiex24 (talk)

Delete. Person not notable. This page was earlier deleted on CSD A7. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We need a global historical perspective here. The Zeferu K570A is to Northern Africa as all those pioneer aircraft were to Europe, which failed to fly between 1903 when the Wrights first took America into the air, and 1906 when Santos-Dumont did the same for Europe: failures like the Phillips Multiplane I and Vuia I. This article needs more work to add the aeroplane, is all. (And if the K570A does eventually fly, it will become as notable to North African history as the Santos-Dumont 14-bis is to Western European history.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the basic details. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move and restructure to Zeferu K-570. The aircraft is what is most notable here; the constructor-pilot can be covered in the article on the aircraft itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I voted above to keep. Move and restructure (per The Bushranger) would be OK, too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Institute, low vision and blind rehabilitation "Josefina C. Bignone"[edit]

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

No indication that this organisation is notable, as demonstrated by a search for the Spanish-language name. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Checking with some other search options, it is apparent that the institute is rarely referred to with it's full and official name. But again, I'm not fluent enough in Spanish to see if the mentions or sources are good enough. w.carter-Talk 10:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since no one else seemed to pay it much attention, I did what search I could and added some refs and facts to the article. It has served a great number of patients for fourteen years and it has been mentioned on the websites of an Argentinian newspaper, the socialist party, the municipality and by government representatives. w.carter-Talk 23:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And if kept, I suggest the article be moved to "Josefina C. Bignone Eye Institute" since the present title is a remnant from the first rather bad translation. w.carter-Talk 09:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure basically but perhaps keep as I speak Spanish so I would certainly be able to view the sources but either way, this seems acceptable perhaps for now. Notifying DGG who asks to be notified where he has familiar input and I also believe he may have some beneficial input. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "mentions" is the word for it. The newspaper article is usable towards notability-- the other two are mere mentions. No evidence of any particular importance in the city. We wouldn't hesitate to remove this if it were in the US. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This was my experience, too. I found lots of mentions, but nothing much that looked like significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully we can find some spanish speakers who can give a better evaluation of the available sources -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in independent sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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