The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Aina[edit]

Ola Aina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL (fully proffessional league). First PROD but it was removed without explanation. Qed237 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable as per WP:NFOOTBALL. Quis separabit? 23:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Spiderone 08:25, 21 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) 16:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Presently fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Just a bit WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:35, 25 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} 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opeyemi Enoch[edit]

Opeyemi Enoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This mathematician fails WP:BIO1E and WP:PROF. He created a bit of a media splash a few weeks ago when the Nigerian newspapers reported that he had proved the Riemann hypothesis and won the million-dollar Millennium Prize, based only on a talk abstract at a non-prestigious conference, and the international media then picked up the story. These reports were either substance-free (no proof has emerged, and what can be found online under his name inspires no confidence) or outright falsehoods (he has not won the Millennium Prize, and cannot even be considered eligible for winning the prize until publishing a proof). There is little to say about him other than this non-story. If we have an article, we are compelled by WP:NPOV to point out that he has no proof and that some have called the story a hoax, but I think per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP it's better to have no article at all than to have a negative (but accurate) article about a non-public-figure. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with deletion of this article. The subject's fame is because of the BBC world service article which incorrectly said he'd been awarded the Clay prize for the Riemann Hypothesis. The article was amended to explain the mistake, as were most of the mainstream press articles which mistakenly followed World Service's lead. The existing article fails WP:BLP in an unfair way to the article's subject. Crucially, no reputable source has accused him of any wrongdoing, it is clearly an innocent mistake. WP:BLP must be taken seriously as it affects peoples' lives.Createangelos (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the relevant guidelines and too much WP:RECENTISM in the article. It is unlikely to be suitable for a fully fleshed out BLP based on news articles about the Riemann controversy which give very little if any biographical detail about Enoch himself. The current version of the article does not even have his date of birth, which would be available if he met WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BLP1E, the available coverage of the subject consists entirely of news reports concerning his purported proof of the Riemann hypothesis, most of which is highly inaccurate (for instance this source, cited in the article, claims that three Millennium problems have been solved previously, the actual figure is one). The subject is only covered in the context of this event, the subject is likely to remain low profile otherwise and a non-proof of the Riemann hypothesis is not a significant event. Obviously actually solving one of the Millennium prize problems would confer notability, as the result would be very influential in the relevant fields and would generate lasting coverage of the subject in the manner of Grigori Perelman or Andrew Wiles, but that's not going to happen here. Hut 8.5 10:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable secondary sources on the subject (as required by WP:GNG), and no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Sławomir
  Biały 23:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per all above Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought of nominating this article for deletion, the very first day it was created but I decided to wait a bit to confirm the authenticity of the claim that he won the Millennium Prize. I found this claim to be untrue, hence the need to consider deletion per WP:BLP1E. I will also like to mention that he fails our criteria on WP:ACADEMIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:56, 24 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) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Alizad[edit]

Akbar Alizad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Searches found nothing better at all than a few passing mentions at Highbeam and browsers including also links for an apparently unrelated professor Ali Akbar Alizad. It's also worth noting this was started by the subject himself apparently and not only was this PRODded shortly after (which is why we're here at AfD), I was going to PROD until I noticed it, here's my PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable enough as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions and I should also note I also found links for an unrelated professor with this name.". SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - [1][2][3][4][5][6] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Apparently he is a known figure in the Iranian theater, nevertheless the article requires further revision and referencing. Arashtitan talk 20:40, 24 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 Blind Guardian. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tales from the Underworld[edit]

Tales from the Underworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced, fails WP:NALBUMS, it's only a short sentence, an infobox and a tracklist. Less than half the bands are apparently notable. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails both WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 01:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As it has 4 notable bands and is a tribute album to Blind Guardian it can be merged into the Blind Guardian article.81.131.211.59 (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, a non-notable release. Azealia911 _talk 18:49, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Michael Ekanem[edit]

Jane Michael Ekanem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. I can't find that evidence of notability. She is only doing her job to make ends meet. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find any reliable sources that would make this notable. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She is only known for two things: 1.) styling notable personalities and 2.) being nominated for the “Stylist of the Year" award, neither of which confirms significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm finding several mentions of her in news outlets as a "celebrity stylist," but only passing mentions of her as the stylist of more notable celebrities. If there were a bit more information on her career or life, I could see an argument for keeping. Fuzchia (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of the adequate notability. Arashtitan 20:51, 24 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} 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chimsnero Goldsmith[edit]

Chimsnero Goldsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find that evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Hardly even much here to suggest even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apparently he is not notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Arashtitan talk 20:45, 24 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} 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days[edit]

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. This Google search shows a couple brief mentions (likely from press releases) in very minor newspapers, a Natural News mention, and nothing else besides some off-topic articles. Box Office Mojo shows no theatrical release. Rotten Tomatoes [7] knows of no reviews.

And to note, it's not that there aren't movies on similar subject, that clearly are notable: Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead and Forks Over Knives, say, both have widespread reviews and coverage. This does not, that, and that alone, is why I'm nominating it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there appears to be significant coverage, such as through the Google Books results. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The requirement is significant coverage in reliable sources; those don't appear to be reliable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to absence of sufficient reliable independent sources to allow an NPOV article. The "documentary" promotes a dangerously misguided approach to managing diabetes, which has, as far as I can see, zero credible scientific support. To cover this without robust sources on the validity of the claims made, and content noting that the entire idea of following a raw food diet in place of diabetes medication, is batshit insane, dangerous and wrong. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Makes medical claims, but lacks references which satisfy Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). A few articles based on press releases fall far short of the required level of sourcing when claims are made that doing thus and such will reverse diabetes. Edison (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NF. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for helping promote advocacy of a medically unsound idea that is not notable in and of itself. Bishonen | talk 11:57, 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 speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V. E. Arikoro[edit]

V. E. Arikoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find that evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:31, 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} 07:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utilisation[edit]

Utilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Like the nomination say, it's a dictionary definition. This could conceivably be turned into a redirect to the relevant Wiktionary article. It doesn't seem like we have a master list of medical jargon. Too bad, because that would be great redirection target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIC. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:51, 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} 07:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Ligue Régional I[edit]

2009–10 Ligue Régional I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A season specific article for a league that is way below the professional level in Algeria.

I am also nominating the following related page:

2011–12 Ligue Régional I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 19:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete neither of these two nominated seasons are notable, lacking significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Given their non-professional standing there is nothing to save them at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). As GiantSnowman said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Ligue Régional I: you might want to bundle those related articles into this AFD, they are also non-notable. That didn't happen, but they are here now. --Bejnar (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of GNG, the league itself is notable as it appears clubs are eligible for a national cup competition but but no indication of GNG to justify a season article, particularly when there is no article for the vast majority of the participants. Fenix down (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Not a top-flight league, thus failing WP:NSEASONS. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:30, 25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Sports Promotion Society[edit]

International Sports Promotion Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Allegedly G11, but I think it could be salvaged...after we determine if the article should stay. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment only for now as I haven't formed much commentary yet but I will say this because the Japanese Wiki has considerable information and sources so this will surely need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There is no clear-cut evidence that this article has been covered in significant detail by independent, reliable, third-party evaluation sources, so I think it fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I have to admit I cannot see a good reason to keep this if users judge whether the article meets the "WP:GROUP" or not just on the basis of the Japanese wiki which has multiple issue.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 13:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I think this article should be salvaged because the contents have been significantly improved and increased with new considerable information from independent, reliable, third-party evaluation sources.--Husa (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've checked sources attached to the article in Japanese Wikipedia and I couldn't find any sources that meet criteria of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Husa-san, avobe all please read WP:SPIP, WP:NOTADVERTISING. If you and your friends will provide identifying reliable sources that have been the subject of significant coverage, I'll reconsider the matter. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking into the articles attached to ISPS Japanese Wikipedia (jp:国際スポーツ振興協会) and English Wikipedia, I have found that the following sources evidently meet the criteria of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a number of independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles and specialized magazines etc.

• "Foxes foursome and new naming sponsor for Open". Queenstown, New Zealand: Mountain Scene. November 12, 2015. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
• "公益財団法人東京都体育協会加盟競技団体等一覧表" (PDF) (in Japanese). Tokyo. 2013-03-01. Retrieved 2015-11-26.
• "続・アカスリ半田劇場3" [Zoku Akasuri Handa Theater 3]. Sports Nippon (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). August 13, 2014.
• "Olympics-Father of blind golf pushing for Paralympic place". Reuters. 2012-06-29. Retrieved 2014-06-14.
• "続・アカスリ半田劇場2" [Zoku Akasuri Handa Theater 2]. Sports Nippon (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). July 20, 2014.
• "16カ国参加スポーツ平和サミット開幕" [World Sports Values Summit for Peace Opens - Participants from 16 Nations]. Daily Sports (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). July 19, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
• "スポーツ平和サミット東京大会が開催-ｽﾎﾟｰﾂの力は無限大" 公益社団法人　日本プロゴルフ協会 [World Sports Values Summit for Peace in Tokyo is Held – The Power of Sports is Infinite]. PGA News (in Japanese). Tokyo, Japan: Professional Golfers’Association of Japan. July 19, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
• "Mpumalanga Black Aces proud of ISPS kit deal". Kick Off. July 31, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
• "ポールターにマスターズ覇者も! ISPSハンダグローバルカップ記者発表会開催" [ISPS Handa Global Cup of the press conference held]. ALBA (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). July 1, 2015. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
• "ISPS Handa and LET sign new agreement". Golf Monthly (Time Inc. (UK) Ltd.). December 1, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
• "ISPS HANDA becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf". PGA European Tour. September 11, 2013.
• "ISPSハンダがワールドカップのタイトルスポンサーに" [ISPS Handa becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf]. ParGolf (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan: Pargolf & Company). September 11, 2013.
• "ISPSハンダがワールドカップのタイトルスポンサーに" [ISPS Handa becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf]. Golf Digest (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). September 11, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
• "ISPS HANDA becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf 2013". Sankei Sports (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). September 12, 2013.

There is no obvious evidence that the above listed sources do not meet the criteria of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. ISPS has launched ISPS Handa Global Cup, one of the highest-rated tournament in Japan, and also organizes ISPS Handa World Cup of Golf, one of the most renowned golf event in the world. Since Infinite0694-san and Takabeg-san are Japanese users who seem not to know a lot about golf, they have disregarded independent, reliable third-party evaluation sources such as golf magazines. Husa-san is a Japanese user who is quite knowledgeable of golf and disabled golf (blind golf). Additionally, Google search will provide more news such as [8]. I understand the original reason for the request of delete was the advertising description uploaded by two supporters, User talk: IMGGolf15 and User talk:143.223.9.249. Now that, however, the great majority of such advertising description has already been deleted, resulting in being encyclopedic enough to be kept. In view of the fact that the original reason for delete has already disappeared, there cannot be seen any necessity to continue the consideration. 創造院 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sources overall fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Sponsorship deal announcements are generally trivial coverage, and there is absolutely no coverage of ISPS Handa outside the context of these sponsorship deals. The only reason I voted for Keep is a number of reputable sources do give single-paragraph background on ISPS Handa, but the need for such points to the utter lack of WP:RS in other sources. The entire article was written with a heavy WP:PROMOTION slant and without serious revision to the article. I expect it to remain eligible for another AfD nomination. Jun Kayama 16:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable. No reason for deletion. Deletion should be a last resort! There cannot be seen any advertising or other spam in the article, which has many independent, reliable and third-party sources such as Reuters[9], Kick Off, Japanese newspaper, and so on. Its contents are entirely encyclopedic. ぽてから (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first so-called in-depth source from the above list that I picked to look at (ISPSハンダがワールドカップのタイトルスポンサーに of 2013/09/11) was a short, possibly slightly rewritten, Press Release from ISPS. The second one ("スポーツ平和サミット東京大会が開催-ｽﾎﾟｰﾂの力は無限大") was a short report on a ISPS sponsored conference, with no coverage of ISPS. These sorts of articles do not meet the in-depth coverage standards of WP:ORG. Undoubtedly the Japanese Wikipedia has their own distinct standards. --Bejnar (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Japan may repeatedly demonstrate rock bottom standards in the use of citations, but in this particular case ISPS Handa is covered by the Daily Telegraph [10], Boston Herald [11], the PGA [12], and the LPGA [13]. There is a European Tour article which actually references Haruhisa Handa by name and provides a short biography as well [14]. The article edges towards WP:PROMO but there is enough in the way of WP:RS to justify its continued existence. Jun Kayama 05:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources you just mentioned do not cover the ISPS, they mention it in passing since it sponsored the sporting event that is being covered. --Bejnar (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With reservations. [15] and [16] both cover achievements. It's not just pure sponsorship mentioned but canvassing for the Paralympics and activism for disabled golfers. There is barely enough for WP:ORGDEPTH but it is there. Haruhisa Handa certainly does not get a pass on WP:BIO for his non-golf related philanthropy, the majority of the sources listed by 創造院 are subpar, and the quality of the article leaves much to be desired (Husa left reference to a blond medal in the text, which is atrocious) but with a lot of elbow grease this article can be fixed. Jun Kayama 07:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After going through the article with a blowtorch and removing the more outrageous nonsense (i.e. Premia League and dubious claims) I am convinced that this article was generated with WP:PROMOTION in mind. However there's enough mention in WP:RS to give it a chance at life provided the more over-the-top laudatory nonsense is excised (Japanese editors: What makes sense to you in Japanese text is often nonsensical in English, especially when you fail utterly to provide WP:RS). If this AfD is relisted and this article doesn't undergo substantive improvement in quality, I'm voting for Deletion. Jun Kayama 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For the sake of any other beneficial comments overall, I hope this will be relisted another time. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Based on the above. The article definitely needs some love though. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:19, 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.  Sandstein  14:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Carroll[edit]

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)).

Glen Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks notabilty. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No notability independent of his band. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After 16 pages of Google search results, I could not find anything beyond a trivial interview. Notability is not inherited etc. Ceosad (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simply instead of redirecting as there's unlikely anything for a better independent article. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the subject is widely discussed in Steven Kurutz's book (See the LA Times and NPR articles in the Ref list), and has media coverage for his song writing and performances, as well as an award.RS456 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — RS456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This guy won the Billboard Songwriting Music Awards 2013,Also won the Akademia Music Award for Best Rock.He is the lead vocalist of the band (see)sticky fingers. Jaljogcyber (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Jaljogcyber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Notable i.a. as a symbol for the field of tribute singers, detained in the book "Like a rolling stone". The poor quality of the article shouldn't affect this, sometimes internet visibility can be deceptive. Doctorlaszlo (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Doctorlaszlo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not true, long-standing contributor to German Wikipedia [17] Doctorlaszlo (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing? Your first edit there was December 9, and you have 89 edits. Your edits to Fiverr show that you are aware of the problems with undisclosed WP:COI edits, so please don't take it personally if we are skeptical over a bunch of new accounts rushing in to save an obscure, recently created promotional article about a minor musician. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Glen is Clearly notable and meets with all the guidelines of Encyclopedia, Sticky Fingers (tribute band) existing wikipedia page also brags about the notability. see published album on itunes ^[1] Charlie.rodricks (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Charlie.rodricks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and turn to a redirect to Sticky Fingers (tribute band). Although that article also has notability issues, the sources are almost entirely about the band, not specifically about this person. Having an album on iTunes and winning an award of questionable notability (Akademia Music Award) do not demonstrate notability (see WP:ENT). The book is a lot closer, but it's still about the band, not the individual, and unless there are much better sources out there, this should covered there, not here. Grayfell (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This perst....

• Keep The subject is notable and contributors should improve the article for next level. This is my first entry in deletion discussion. I find the subject notable as it has it's appearance in Los Angeles Times and CBS News.Therefore the tone should be improved in order to make it non promotional and as per wikipedia guidelines.Kellyburstone (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times mention is in a review of a book, which is only partly about the band, of which Carroll is only one member. The book may be notable. The band may also, possibly, be notable, but how is Carroll notable? See WP:NOTINHERITED. Where is he mentioned by CBS News? Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. du Lac, J. Freedom (2007-06-25). "Anyone Hear an Echo?; Fakefest, Where the Pretenders (Not the Real Ones) Come to Rock". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2015-12-28. (subscription required)

     The article notes:

     "I bring joy to people who otherwise couldn't afford to see the Stones," says Glen Carroll, the band's Mick Jagger doppelganger.

     ...

     Carroll is an interesting case study among rock-and-roll tribute actors. Never mind that he looks the part (right down the pouty lips and handsome wrinkles), or that he moves and sings like Jagger, nailing the singer's preeny poses and transatlantic bray. It's that he seems to be living somebody else's rock-and-roll lifestyle. He guzzles beer and smokes where no smoking is allowed and hits on just about every woman he encounters. He also talks himself up as a man of wealth and taste. Something about Sticky Fingers being paid as much as $10,000, though that kind of payday usually only comes overseas, Carroll says.

     "I have a house on the water in Florida," he says. "I have a Mercedes convertible that's paid for. I have a gold Presidential Rolex. I have women to die for from one end of the country to the next -- girls you just wouldn't believe." Later, he says: "It's sex, drugs and rock-and-roll." Is he joking? Acting for the sake of the notebook? Drunk?

     In his previous life, Carroll says, he was a military pilot. He's in his mid-40s now and says he's attending law school. But this rock- and-roll thing: He likes it. "I live for this," he says. "I do this because I see a beautiful woman smiling at me when I'm onstage, and it's . . . "

  2. Conan, Neal (2008-04-22). "'Like a Rolling Stone' an Ode to Tribute Bands". NPR. Archived from the original on 2015-12-28. Retrieved 2015-12-28.

     The article quotes from Steven Kurutz's book Like a Rolling Stone, which was published by Broadway Books according to this review in The New York Times and this review in Kirkus Reviews:

     When Glen Carroll travels for work, he takes a pair of black stage pants, a studded belt, and a few shirts, usually in splashy colors like bright red or banana yellow. If he wants to make a more noticeable impression, he might take something flashier, like a cape fashioned from an American flag and a British flag tied together, or a T-shirt imprinted with the Greek omega symbol and paired with a silk scarf, or white football pants with blue knee pads and Capezio dance shoes — an outfit very similar, as it happens, to the one Mick Jagger wore on the Rolling Stones' 1981 tour. For Glen, verisimilitude in dress is part of the job. As the singer of Sticky Fingers, which bills itself as "the leading international Rolling Stones tribute show," he is a kind of rock star proxy, a substitute Mick. And considering that the Rolling Stones tour only once every few years, and that Sticky Fingers has toured every year for the past eighteen years, it's likely that he has sung "Start Me Up," and "Brown Sugar," and "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" more times than Mick Jagger himself.

     Glen is slim and snake-hipped, with heavy-lidded eyes and a prominent, almost coltish mouth. At forty-seven, he resembles a slightly younger Mick Jagger — the Jagger of, say, Steel Wheels — and wears his brown hair in the same style: short in front, longer and feathery on the sides. Offstage, he favors blue jeans, a blazer, and scuffed loafers, or a T-shirt and motorcycle boots. At all times, he wears a gold Rolex "President" watch. In person, he has a sociable nature and a roguish charm and comes across like the kind of guy you might encounter late at night in a barroom, jive-talking one of the waitresses. As a bandleader, however, he is mercurial and governs by mood. He once threatened to fire the rhythm guitarist because his hair had grown beyond appropriate Ron Wood length. On the other hand, when he's having a good time, and particularly when he's been drinking, he will climb behind the drum kit, to the frustration of more authentic-minded band members. "Who ever heard of Mick Jagger playing the drums?" the drummer once remarked, exasperated. Glen is equally contradictory in appraising his own talents, swinging between modesty and extreme boastfulness. "I know what it's like to walk in Mick's shoes — with lift supports, mind you," he once told me. He has also told me, "If you want me to go out and front a band, I'll do it as good as maybe ten other guys in the world can do it."

     That a book provided significant biographical material about Glen Carroll strongly establishes that he is notable.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Glen Carroll to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles (WP:MUSICBIO) says:

  Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. 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.

  This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries, [except for trivial coverage or non-independent material]

  Glen Carroll received significant coverage in The Washington Post. He received significant coverage in the Broadway Books–published book Like a Rolling Stone. He clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO. It does not matter whether the sources cover him in the context of the band he founded, Sticky Fingers (tribute band). It matters only that the sources cover him in substantial detail and are independent of him.

  There is enough material specifically about Glen Carroll in the reliable sources to justify a separate article about him.

  Cunard (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Glen Carroll contains plenty of reliably sourced material about the subject and the band. There is no reason to delete the article's history if it is redirected to Sticky Fingers (tribute band) because some of the material can be merged. Cunard (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - His being the main focus of author Steven Kurutz's 220 page band biography[18] and inclusion in the additional references I just added[19] (there's more, I just didn't have time to get to them), the topic is WP:GNG qualified. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:03, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AMD K12[edit]

AMD K12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Topic about a future concept where lack of information lies; should not exist yet. EnigmaLord515 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Shortage of information is not a valid reason for deletion. This has been announced for over a year and there are sources to speak to its existence, thus notability. A lack of information with which to build content is regretted, but is likely to be a temporary and improving shortage as development proceeds. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, shortage of information is exactly why this is not notable. If there were more information, namely the ability to test the chip, then independent researchers could provide information that could appear in secondary sources. The general notability guidelines specifically say: Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. There can be not significant coverage without detail. --Bejnar (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete delete for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. It is fair to say that all the factually information here is from AMD, since the chip has not been released, hence no independence. Also, Wikipedia is not in the predicting business. "There is many a slip twixt the lip and the cup." Again FN1 & FN2 sources appear to be from press releases. Scott Wasson's piece (FN4) at least brings in some analysis. But as he said in 2014, As always, everything depends on the specifics. AMD has to deliver these products, and they have to perform well in order to matter. That is a pretty suscinct statement that notability can only occur later, hence WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As said above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once we have more solid information, we can recreate the page. This could probably be redirected somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure where. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, it's not worth fighting over this. We can come back to this later if it turns out to be vaporware. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is enough reliable source coverage for this stub article and to satisfy WP:GNG. Stub articles are common in Wikipedia and there's no guideline or policy that I know of, that supports deleting properly sourced stub articles. -- intgr [talk] 09:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but Apollo 11 was notable even before it reached the moon. This is notable within its field and adequately sourced. Thparkth (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – AnandTech and The Tech Report are RS for computer hardware topics. I see sufficient coverage from a quick Google search. sst✈^discuss 11:07, 27 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, shenanigans with the nominator aside. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Sabir[edit]

Rafiq Sabir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a vanity article of Non notable writer, part of a walled garden of cruft created by same editor, does not meet WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:BIO's standards. Hassan Rebell (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Well, after googling in Swedish, and digging up some passing mentions and videos I found out that this man is relatively active in various Kurdish culture activities. Not like that alone justifies any notability. It is possible that some sources are able to prove his notability, but that terrorist makes all searches difficult. However, I am not convinced. Ceosad (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- his poetry is held by all the major US institutions that collect poetry in Kurdish. Admittedly, that's few (about 8) but he's represented in all of them. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - US institutions holds all of the collected poetry. per WP:GNG---BabbaQ (talk) 17:19, 26 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Voyage[edit]

Terminal Voyage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NFILM criteria. No significant reliable coverage under either the name "Terminal Voyage" or "Starquest" at Google/Google News/Newspaper Archive, JSTOR, Highbeam. Any coverage appears to be from unreliable blogs. /wia🎄/tlk 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add the results of the Google Books search. There is a one-paragraph blurb in The Sci-Fi Movie Guide about the film, but I do not feel this is sufficient to meet notability guidelines. /wia🎄/tlk 15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cheesy-looking Russian language review site using the unfortunate name B-Movies appears to have staff offering editorial oversite and hundreds of reviews specifically of B Movies.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Hey MichaelQSchmidt, I'm having trouble determining if that link indicates editorial oversight. Some of the names look like they could indicate it, but others (like this one and this one) link to pages about people who've been dead for many years, in some cases predating the Internet. The thing is that I'm relying on Google Translate here, so I could easily be wrong. Thanks for your work here by the way; I'll try to go through the alts below later today and see what turns up. /wia🎄/tlk 19:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the film has had multiple non-English releases under different names, I am expanding my own WP:BEFORE... specially as it is unlikely (though possible) that something directed by Rick Jacobson, editied by John Gilbert, and distributed by Roger Corman received no coverage. That said, I'll be checking some alts:

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'll be back. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per my finding sources. Turns out the title Terminal Voyage is poorly searchable, but under its TV release title of Star Quest (lots more false hits) I found a quite decent review in New York Daily News and will be looking for more under that title. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Nice find. You are awesome. /wiae /tlk 01:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources added by Schmidt and additional book sources such as The Phantom of the Movies' Videoscope by Joe Kane or Creature Features: The Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Movie Guide by John Stanley. More searchable under the title "Star Quest" so moving to this name could be appropriate. Cavarrone 08:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(@Cavarrone: I had thought to do as appropriate just that after the AFD closes)Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per nom, given the lack of coverage. WP:USUAL may apply, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Giami[edit]

Ken Giami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (having previously nominated this for speedy deletion). The ref added by an IP shows that the US state of Georgia passed a resolution "recognizing and commending African Leadership Magazine and Dr. Ken Giami, editor-in-chief, on their inaugural international business forum; and for other purposes". That seems to me to be a pretty big deal and sufficient indication of notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardOSmith: Among other people and things the state of Georgia has recognized and commended are Georgia State Patrol Post 19; the Forest Park Teen Council; health inspector David Brake; Monica Poole, Hancock Central High School's 2012 STAR Teacher; and Deja Regine Davis, a teenager who completed a standard 12-step Christian high school program. Local resolutions are meaningless for notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my comment. I am at best neutral on the matter. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese can you kindly write what exactly is wrong with the article? Or suggest a way to improve it? You mentioned the notability clause and references have been added for verification... You also cited lack of relevant or reliable sources and those have been added as well. You stayed that the state of Georgia "Local" recognition is meaningless and other recognitions have been cited such as the award of an honorary doctorate by the Abbey college London... Up until you mentioned socks I did not know that existed on Wikipedia being a world class encyclopedia, however I stand corrected. And you seem like an expert so I'm seeking your opinion as I sought the opinions of others where my actions are now reffered to as canvassing.. What can I do to improve the article @Roscelese in your expert opinion?Bomabenjy2 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.[reply]

I not an SPA - I am new to Wikipedia and I just needed clarification. However I will allow the due processes to be followed and whatever decisions are reached would be respected. I just thought the page was worthy to be created on WikipediaBomabenjy2 (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - None of this suggests even minimally better notability and improvement, TNT at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* The conferment of honorary citizenship by the state of Georgia is a notable recognition as stated here the recognition was due to his roles in promoting trade development between Africa and ..... http://africanleadership.co.uk/about/advisory-board/

He was also commended for consistently working to bridge the trade and cultural gap between Africa and the United States of America at a different forum by US Governor Martin O'Malley and the Maryland Secretary of State, Mr John P. McDonough..... http://leadership.ng/news/366600/us-governor-martin-omalley-commends-african-leadership-magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernice83 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC) — Bernice83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.[reply]

• Comment. Closer will no doubt note the large number of obvious socks/SPAs. I'll pursue it at SPI if it rises to the level of a real problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I see one SPA. Am I accused of being a sockpuppet? RichardOSmith (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're fine. There are a bunch of socks on the article and its talk page and I didn't notice that they weren't also commenting here. Sorry about that! (Although, note mt response to you up above.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I think your response to mine above is valid; I wanted to investigate a bit further before commenting. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and you predicted the arrival of the SPAs and possible socks correctly! RichardOSmith (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* @Roscelese The Ken Giami article has been edited with references since you nominated it for deletion under notability clause. It has been referenced accordingly with verifiable facts by different users and according to Wikipedia deletion criteria, it does not violate any of the clauses listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomabenjy2 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Bomabenjy2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne Palestine[edit]

Charlemagne Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Chevvin (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. On the contrary, he appears to be notable.[20][21][22][23][24][25] --Hegvald (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources provided by Hegvald are enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. clpo13_(talk) 18:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly meets GNG per sources provided by Hegvald —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources available, some of which are included in the article already. — sparklism ^hey! 20:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this article is about a notable figure in the beat movement. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:43, 23 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 (NAC) The argument that the subject has inherent notability because of the senior civil service position he holds is convincing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Banaru Abubakar[edit]

Muhammad Banaru Abubakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thIbrahimmb (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)e list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If a permanent secretary in Nigeria is equivalent to a permanent secretary in the United Kingdom then he's probably notable, given that's a very senior civil service position (the highest rank in the civil service, in fact). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ditto a permanent secretary by status and context in Nigeria is same as that of British Government (highest civil service rank). ‎Seems the person is also of native traditional institution and recently deceased, notable to me  Ibrahimmb (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)ibrahimmb[reply]

*Delete Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per comments 197.211.52.25 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Ibrahimmb[reply]

• Keep per Necrosthep's points. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "He's probably notable" is not enough without the sources to back it up for a BLP. JMHamo (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per @Necrothesp: a major civil servant passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable per our long-standing consensus. I never noticed earlier that he was a former permanent secretary. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:45, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAGA (pop band)[edit]

Thank you for advice, I will refresh page with more detailed information and active links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagafan (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAGA (pop band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doing some copy editing here and the more I looked the fewer good refs that appeared to exist. I am no expert on Asian languages but those refs that I can translate and/or understand seem to give glancing refs or promises of great things yet to come. I can't see anything that hints at notability. Rather the whole thing hints at paid promotional editing to get a page here. Appears to fail WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as none of the current coverage seems sufficiently convincing, unless better Japanese coverage can be found. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Noen of the links establish that the group is notable.Peachywink (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence this passes WP:BAND. sst✈^discuss 11:14, 27 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 Userfy. Moving this to User:3family6/Helvete (journal) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helvete (journal)[edit]

Helvete (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, relatively new journal. A handful of articles/blogposts, some of which mentioning the journal in passing, are listed in the article but otherwise there are no independent sources. Not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Changing my vote to userfy as creator. WP:NJournals is an essay. Before creating this article, I looked for the notability criteria for academic journals, and could not find any guidelines listed (which I now know is because NJournals is an essay, not a guideline). However, I was able to find the notability standards for academic books, which state the following: "...most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." They then give some thresholds of notability criteria, of which the following the Helvete article meets: Cited by academic publications; influential in its specialty area. Below I will list the other sources that cite this journal:

• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29] (twice in this one)
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]

Note that these citations I found through Google Scholar, and it might not be possible to search within some articles in the links I've given above.

That's seven citations to a barely four-year-old journal which has released only two issues so far, in a highly specialized, esoteric-leaning sub-sub-field. In addition to those seven citations, it has also seen an article from it featured on Medievalists.net, and has received significant coverage in an independent, reliable source, and a brief mention in a different reliable source, and another brief mention in yet another reliable source (all four of these examples I had not encountered before now, and I will work to include these in the article). So, my contention is that while this journal may not have much significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, a highly specialized journal does not need such coverage. While WP:NJournal says that it does need general notability coverage, this is an essay, and thus WP:TEXTBOOK, which is a guideline reflecting community consensus, holds more weight. Going from impact within a field, this journal is highly notable. I encountered it yesterday incidental to other research, and as I looked into it I was surprised at the impact, which is what led me to create the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NJournals is indeed an essay that was designed to make it easier for academic journals to become notable. It has been used in AfDs of academic journals for years now, without much opposition. But if you don't want to follow it, I'm fine with going with GNG (this is not a book, so the book guideline is not applicable, although it is quite obvious that this doesn't meet that guideline either). The number of citations that this journal has garnered (perhaps a dozen, if we assume that you missed perhaps a few besides the 7 that you listed) is, quite frankly, rather pathetic, even for a young journal. The link to Medievalists.net is about a specific article and barely mentions the journal itself. What you call "significant coverage" is just a mention in an interview with an editor, that for the most part is about other subjects. And the brief mentions are indeed just that, in-passing brief mentions. This fails NJournals on all counts and, even if we ignore that because it is an essay, doesn't even come close to meeting GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Actually, using WP:NJournals, this article would satisfy criterion 2, and probably criterion a as well. So, using that metric, it does qualify. As for GNG, yes, it does not pass. But there already is a discrepancy between GNG and WP:TEXTBOOK. So, if it is decided that this article meets WP:TEXTBOOK, but is deleted because of GNG, then I think that this whole guideline needs to be re-examined. I think it is kind of silly to hold academic journals to a higher thresh-hold (in terms of independent coverage) than academic books, which is why I argue that WP:TEXTBOOK is the closest guideline applicable in this situation, with respect to the NJournals essay, which is basically the same as WP:TEXTBOOK.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I'm sorry, but a paltry seven cites is not "frequently cited by other reliable sources" (NJournals#2) and as I have shown above, it is not "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" (NJournals#1). It's not a textbook either, so TEXTBOOKS doesn't apply. Even if TEXTBOOKS did apply, this is a clear fail: this journal is not published by a reputed academic press, it is not "widely cited", it is not translated, there are no reliable sources establishing that it is considered to be influential in its specialty area, and it is not taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions. All that is left is GNG and, as you say, that fails, too. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seven citations might be a lot, or very, very little, depending on the discipline, and I will let other editors, including yourself, judge. My argument is that this journal, along with two or three academic books, virtually IS the field. This is a brand-new field (black metal theory) that emerged in the very late 2000s into the present. Metal studies as a whole is not a large field, and I was surprised that citations to this journal were found outside the narrow field of metal studies. Within metal studies, it is influential, and within black metal theory, it is one of a small handful of literature. I admit that I've never created an article on a journal before. I only did so for this publication because, through curiosity, I looked into it when I found it, and was surprised to find mention of it anywhere at all.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the community does agree that this article should be deleted, I'd like to request userfication instead of deletion, as, in my research for this article and subsequent AfD, it looks as though Niall Scott or Amelia Ishmael, or both, may be notable, and the Hideous Gnosis symposium certainly is notable per GNG, and the content of this article could be included in those articles and other related black metal theory articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the routine standard of WP:GNG. WP:NJOURNAL is suppose to be an easy standard to pass and much more permissive than the usual standards, and this article fails that also. Even if this article were kept the text in the article does not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for what content Wikipedia presents. This is WP:OR, and not a summary of what has already been published. This could be userfied if someone wanted to reconsider the scope of this and rewrite it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can understand the arguments from WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. I submit that I was completely unfamiliar with creating articles about journals when I made this article, and followed only WP:TEXTBOOK, since WP:NJOURNAL isn't listed among the notability standards, and per Randykitty's rationale above, I can see how it wouldn't meet WP:TEXTBOOK either. I think the only real merit that this article has for keeping it is that it was the first heavy metal music-dedicated journal, predating the much more notable Metal Music Studies. However, I don't understand what in the article is original research, except maybe the disciplines list for what the journal covers. Everything else has citations, albeit many to first-party sources, which isn't unacceptable if the article does not rely unduly on them for notability support.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am withdrawing my keep vote and requesting userfication instead, where I will integrate the information about this journal into some more notable subjects, specifically Niall Scott, the International Society for Metal Music Studies, and maybe Amelia Ishmael.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft and userfy only if needed as I would've even said this article looks rather notable and acceptable for now but any further better improvement would be welcome of course. SwisterTwister talk 08:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SwisterTwister: I don't know how much improvement can be on the article in the recent future. More might emerge after a few year, but right now, the content can't really be developed much, as I was pretty exhaustive in the research for this journal once it was nominated for deletion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy, per the author's request. I am sympathetic to the challenges faced by journals that publish within arcane sub-sub-sub-fields and rarely receive citations outside their specialized field. These journals may be well-known to academics within that sub-field, yet the journals may receive no more than a dozen citations every few years. Nevertheless, this journal fails both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per above, as it's the author's request. Not notable enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:47, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beech[edit]

Will Beech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I do not think this biography meets the criteria for in inclusion in Wikipedia. The guidelines WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACTOR are relevant here.

In particular, I question the references given to support the notability of this person. I count at least five that do not mention the subject of this article.

@Dctheatrefollower, Bwayfan2001, 12345hbot, Roh9876h, Linecrosser42, Yomomma47, Soonerorlater101, Soonerorlater101, Dream Catching, JoinUs341995ChildrenWillListen, Letitgooo, and PhantomBroadway: you appear to be in Wikipedia jargon "Single purpose accounts" dedicatated to writing about the subject of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and this one is interesting because it seems notable and acceptable at first but my searches instantly found no better coverage and no IMDb at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 11 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. No valid deletion reason proposed by the nominator (who is banned anyways). (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yathartha Pictures[edit]

Yathartha Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The news sources talk mostly about the videos uploaded. Anyway let other editors take decision on this. The Avengers 09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  03:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – enough significant coverage for this to pass WP:GNG. What else can third-party sources talk about a Youtube channel other than their videos? sst✈^(discuss) 13:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 6 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) 16:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lyzanxia[edit]

Lyzanxia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD removed by Michig and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly non-notable all in all perhaps as my searches actually found mostly passing mentions including as examples of bands their studio recorded with. WP:TNT at best if ever more acceptable.". There's nothing to suggest obvious better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As I mentioned when I deprodded it, there's a bio and review at Allmusic and a review from Blabbermouth which were easily found and none of which are passing mentions, and there are a few other brief things online (French newspapers, MTV, etc.). Metal bands often have more coverage in print sources than online, so there may well be more out there. --Michig (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Harrington (photographer)[edit]

John Harrington (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

If it wasn't for the removed PROD from February 2011, I would've kept my added PROD with which I said: "Questionably notable and improvable article for a photographer for which I only found passing mentions at Books and browsers, nothing to suggest better sourcing and notability which this article would need to be kept.". Notifying the only still noticeably active past user Hoary. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. Most relevant sources I found are WP:SPS. sst✈^discuss 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SwisterTwister , Fails WP:GNG and lacks reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:20, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Rhode Island Teen USA[edit]

Miss Rhode Island Teen USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page is 100% unsourced. I thought surely the sponsoring organization would be a good source for all the detail about hometowns, ages, subsequent wins etc but no, they don't even find that detail important enough to track. They just offer a list of names and years, along side a list of Miss Rhode Island USA winners. That leaves us with a copyvio list of names and unverified details to go with the names. If the company does not even care enough to give the past winner list its own page with basic bio details, how can this be important enough for an article here? Perhaps a mention at the Miss Teen USA page is enough. http://www.missrhodeislandusa.com/rhodeisland_fame.html Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect if that's likely as well as there's nothing solid to suggest better independent notability for an article aside from the expected coverage for these pageants. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Note: I have heavily edited the article under consideration here. Pretty much all of the important info in the article is now sourced, and there do not appear to be any valid copyviolation concerns with the article at all. There are also a ton of other options for likely valid citation sources available, if one spent anytime trying to look for them. I would also note that AfD is not cleanup. Guy1890 (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While the contestants may or may not be notable, the contest certainly is notable; there is sufficient significant coverage by reliable sources. As noted above, AfD is not about the current state of the article so much as its potential. Jacona (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and thank you to Guy1890 for his clean-up work. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to their major competition where one article covers all the states: Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, guess what happened there? Your running mate sent that article to AfD, too. There really is no pleasing the anti-pageant crowd, because for some reason any coverage of pageants will somehow offend them, for whatever reason. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly - no rational for keeping, and when an example is provided, insults to the nominator and User:The_Banner who has not even commented here. I trust the closing admin will weigh these comments appropriately. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgreen77: I am not interested in personal attacks. Could you remove that? The Banner talk 10:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are proposing merging a bunch of state articles like the one under consideration here, but this is not the proper forum for that kind of discussion either. The article that you point to here for some reason is also currently over 127,000 bytes long, which is well over the mark when an article should be sub-divided.

I've also personally never heard of the Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant system, but it appears to go back only to around 2005, while the article under consideration here goes back to around 1983. Guy1890 (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  35 edits to the article adding 66 citations after the nomination and the delete !vote makes those !votes dated.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sybreed[edit]

Sybreed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Ah the author happened to remove this at the 7 day period so here we are and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable band article as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions, other Wikis have no considerable improvement and all in all, there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement.". SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - there's no good sources and nothing suggesting notability. The linked album pages should go as well - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Let's keep the article and try to improve it and get better sources, rather than destroying it which would be a premature and unfortunate move. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been three weeks and nobody's found anything. Do you have any sources that would pass Wikipedia sourcing muster? - David Gerard (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. sst✈^discuss 11:36, 27 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:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Granger[edit]

Tony Granger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I was actually going to speedy and/or PROD considering the current article's state and my searches only found unusable mentions for solid notability at News, Books and browsers but then I noticed the CLIO Award which is listed as one of the best awards for advertisers so here we are for better consensus and insight. Frankly, I still feel this is easily speedy material and is an example of WP:TNT at best. I also suggest looking at the history which has seemingly had several contributors since being started by Kylehoedl in May 2010. Notifying author Kylehoedl. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darla Baker[edit]

Darla Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

My PROD was removed Valfontis as this had actually been PRODed before here by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and speaking of the history, you'll notice this article has had quite a noticeable one with both the subject (??) removing and questioning its accuracy as well as vandalism (see talk page as well). I note I still confirm and echo my PROD: Seemingly questionably notable and improvable biography as my searches only found a few passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly much to improve sourcing, notability and improvement overall here. 2009 history also suggests the subject questions the accuracy of this article as well (is that was her?? Things here aren't certain one side or another at all) and there has also been other BLP vandalism and troubles so this also contributes to this simply being best deleted for now.". SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The references are clearly inadequate-- the New York one is not even an article, but a directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NMODEL. MB298 (talk) 17:47, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Hayat[edit]

Javed Hayat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can see nothing in the sources given that conveys any notability. I am aware that establishing notability for Pakistan nationals isn't always easy but this falls well short of any real sense of notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- but hold to give the writer of the article (possibly Hayat himself?) time to respond to the requests on the talk page. The author definitely wants to create a significant, not puffery page and may engage with the discussion but doesn't seem to have all the tools at the disposal. As it is though, I can't find a single library holding in WorldCat for the poetry collection. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches clearly found nothing better even for a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep He is significant figure and has a side info in google, he is notable for google but it has controversies here in Wikipedia. He has devoted a long services to Khowar and Urdu languages as far as I know. Where there he works, no electronic or print media is available, so nobody can easily say after searching on Google that he is not a significant figure. So I suggest to keep it up. AQHayat (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep This person is a well-known writer and poet throughout Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral and has written much on Khowar Language. He has written a poetry book of his own. Must be keep. Ghizeri (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC) — Ghizeri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER - improvement with new references not possible, as they are unavailable. Scr★pIron^IV 14:24, 23 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 University of Exeter#Student life. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Exeter Debating Society[edit]

University of Exeter Debating Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails to meet notability criteria under WP:CLUB or WP:ORG. Few mentions in independent sources and mostly based around who spoke there. Created by a COI editor Aloneinthewild (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Aloneinthewild (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Please do not delete. Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of the page which I think I have now corrected. There are a number of significant, non-trivial, reliable and independent news sources covering events at the Exeter University Debating Society which I think satisfy the notability criteria (WP:GNG). Previously, there were three independent sources quoted on the page: the Exeter University Student paper Exepose (perhaps not sufficient for WP:AUD?); "TheNationalStudent.com" whose reputation, audience and reliability is unclear but most persuasively on a Mail Online blog by Peter Hitchens who spoke at the Society. This article in the Mail Online alone could be sufficient for notability (WP:GNG) as it reports on the Society in a non-trivial way which seemingly satisfies an array of rules such as WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. However it could be argued that the Hitchens blog was more about the topic of debate (legalizing Cannabis) rather than the Society itself which merely provided the platform. So for good measure I have added two additional significant, reliable and independent sources. First is the coverage of the controversial visit of Enoch Powell in 1968. Clearly this is nearly 50 years ago which I guess shouldn't matter (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). This visit caused a significant demonstration by the students which was covered in a non-trivial way at the time by The Daily Telegraph and Exeter Express & Echo; there is also a video on the reference from a film archive. Second, I have also added coverage in The Independent of a debate on student fees, but again the Society merely provided the platform and so may fail WP:SIGCOV although the journalist does describe the Society as "infamous". Clearly just having notable speakers isn't sufficient for notability WP:INHERITORG. However, having the events at the Society independently reported in a non-trivial, verifiable (WP:NRV) way in reputable local and national newspapers which appear to satisfy WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND should be sufficient, surely?

Do not MERGE or REDIRECT. The Society does have a long history which is distinct and separate from Exeter University - so I don't feel it should be MERGED with or REDIRECTED to the Exeter University page, if I have interpreted WP:BRANCH and WP:MERGEREASON correctly? Any thoughts from others? Alphaomega111 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to University of Exeter#Student life perhaps where it is currently mentioned as this society's age certainly makes it notable and at least considerably known, but I'm not sure if there's enough for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments SwisterTwister. I have attempted to make the article more interesting, more structured, add more coverage from appropriate sources and cut out superfluous content. I do think the article is now significantly better (in content, structure and references) due to this process and continue to think it should be a separate article from University of Exeter#Student life for three reasons. First the Society (1893) predates the University (Royal Charter in 1955) and has references to pre 1955 events making it slightly incongruent and not meshing well with University of Exeter#Student life. Second including the University of Exeter Debating Society content in the University of Exeter#Student life page may make the combined article too unwieldy and too wide ranging. Lastly I think there is sufficient notable, non-trivial and interesting content to justify a distinct Wikipedia entry for the University of Exeter Debating Society. Any more thoughts and contributions from others would be excellent?Alphaomega111 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alphaomega, maybe I can offer some advise of what might show this society is notable. Firstly I think we need some reliable source that the debating society has existed since 1893 and for the history section as a whole. This information looks reasonable but we don't have a source for it, maybe one could be found from the university archives, a book, a newspaper clipping. Remember we need something reliable and independent as a source.. Second, the list of patrons, alumni and speakers are just trivial, are there any sources that they actually were involved? At the moment we could think this was made up. Unfortunately Hitchens blog is not an independent source. I'd image if you are involved with this society then there would be some archives which could provide some sources? Aloneinthewild (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I read the refs and they don't establish notability, mostly they mention the club in a very trivial way. My guess is that the keep votes in this afd have a coi. Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments and help. I have a historic knowledge of the Society but no contact with the current Society - as such I am entirely disinterested whether the article is kept, redirected or deleted. My interest for putting the case to keep the article comes from a natural curiosity over the editorial mechanism of Wikipedia. For what its worth, I continue to vote for KEEP. You are right Szzuk that many of the references don't establish notability - those references are for background and context. However, surely the Enoch Powell reference is valid? It is independent (written by the Institute of Historical Research). It has been edited and references checked by professional historians and I think does cover the Society in a non-Trivial way. The demonstration would not have occurred but for the existence of the Society and the incident directly led to a dedicated article in the Daily Telegraph at that time, not a trivial mention. Also thanks to Aloneinthewild for the help - there are many documents in the Archive at Exeter University - a weekly report on the debates was included in the annual summary of events at the University and preceding institutions back to 1893 and more recently (from the 1990's on) they do have copies of the year books published by the Society listing the Patrons, Presidents etc. Sadly I only have a couple of year books (which I could scan, it would help?) but haven't really got the time or in reality the ability to travel to Exeter and dig around in the University Archives. As I say, I'm interested in the process rather than the outcome. Alphaomega111 (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or rather redirect as suggested) -- With the possible exceptions of the Oxford and Cambridge Union Societies, I have grave doubts as to whether any such undergraduate societies are notable. I am strengthened in this view by the list of presidents only having one blue-link in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 27 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 List of supercentenarians who died in 2007. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Tauser[edit]

Elsa Tauser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Being the oldest German person (for one day) is not notable when the only sources are three WP:ROUTINE obituaries. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to deletion. De minimis title holder. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to appropriate list. Someone should talk to the police about the fact that she was predeceased by two children, six grandchildren, ten great-grandchildren and one great-great-grandchild; there's something fishy going on here. EEng (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete should be on a list somewhere. All those deaths in the family... scary! Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe List of supercentenarian serial killers? EEng (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to relevant list. I partially agree with EEng, but without the disrespectful sarcasm regarding her having outlived some of her relatives. 930310 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Lacks sense of humor.Legacypac (talk) 06:54, 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} 07:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Arena-DeRosa[edit]

James Arena-DeRosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously deleted article about a person who has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Only significant coverage has come from press releases from organizations he has worked for and routine news coverage of his hiring (which borrows greatly from the organization's press release) and his political campaign. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a couple of local news stories, one of which is a recycled press release, with one campaign news story. The only claim to notability (assertion of significance) made in the lead is as president and CEO of Foodshare; however Foodshare, a local social service organization, itself is not notable, and I found no suggestion that being its president conferred any special notability. He fails to have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, hence fails WP:BLPNOTE. As just a candidate, there is nothing for him at WP:NPOL. --Bejnar (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mid level administrator and unelected political candidate. Routine local news coverage only. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 26 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) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German intervention against ISIL[edit]

German intervention against ISIL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a clear case of WP:CRYSTALBALL, when users create a military conflict page, based solely on a single declaration. So far, not even a single German soldier or ship or airplane has participated in the effort against ISIL. It is not even clear if there will be. So Germany announced it will join Operation Inherent Resolve, so what? Nothing happened so far to justify such a page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The military operation will start in 2016. Stefanomione (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On 10 December 2015, forty personnel and two Tornados flew to Incirlik. Gavbadger (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG easily —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The clear announcement of military intervention already constitutes an intervention by itself. Though the article fails to point that out, Germany has already intervened before by providing the Iraqi Peshmerga with weapons and training them. PanchoS (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason given for deletion: this topic is clearly notable Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree fully with the above. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the topic appears to be notable, and I would imagine that the commencement of operations will result in the article being expanded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 26 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. Not promotional and also WP:SK 3 (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix P-12 Community College[edit]

Phoenix P-12 Community College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion --Mr.Luther34-- 16:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Tone is not unsalvageably promotional—I don't even think it's promotional at all. Lots of sources, even if most are primary. Not a bad start for a school article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]