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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside (novel)[edit]

Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside (novel) (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 clear indication of notability NottNott talk|contrib 23:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The publication of a novel is exciting, but fans of this book need to be aware that there would have to be things like reviews or feature articles in scholarly journals or in edited, general circulation publications (i.e. major newspapers) before a novel can have a Wikipedia article. I could find none. Reviewers searching for notability should be are that "up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside" was a Mao Zedong- era slogan. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Kirkus review is unusable since it was done via Kirkus Indie, where you can purchase a review from the site. Despite the site's claims of being unbiased, there's no way that a paid review can be considered a neutral source for Wikipedia's purposes. (And there's been some talk that Kirkus itself has some serious issues with reliability.) I'll see if other sources exist, but I wanted to throw this one out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book is notable per NBOOK. There's just not anything out there that isn't primary in one way or another. On a side note, the publisher is sort of interesting, although forum threads like this one do set off warning vibes. That's all an aside though and mostly just something interesting about things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The novel has been selected as one of Kirkus's Indie Books of the Month for January 2016 - does that help at all? Will post a reference to that when it comes out (probably in January). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qc418 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but no. The problem with Kirkus Indie is that it requires payment before they will do or write anything about a book or author. In other words, in order to be a book of the month they had to pay for Kirkus's services in the first place. It just wouldn't be seen as a non-partial source since it'd be in their best interest to promote something that they were paid to review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 8 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^Talk 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hogtown (film)[edit]

Hogtown (film) (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 was an "upcoming" film some years ago but it is hard to work out if it ever surfaced. The refs are very niche and two look like regurgitated press releases. Nothing here appears to satisfy WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I removed one of the reviews from the reception section since it was quoted from this article, which was written the month before the screening. The description gives off the impression that the author could have seen Hogtown, but there's no guarantee that they did. I'd consider it usable as a RS to show notability but just not as a review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tokyogirl79: Go ahead and put it back. The detail of the removed article makes it clear it was based upon a quite common instance of his seeing a pre-release screener. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It looks like it did screen in 2014 and it received some reviews from various different outlets. I'd say that there's enough for it to pass NFILM now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sound Keep of a released film receiving media attention in enough reliable sources to meet WP:NF, and encourage a far more diligent WP:BEFORE prior to nominations. I have a very difficult time with the nominators's conception that The Chicago Sun-Times and The Chicago Tribune and The Gene Siskel Film Center are somehow "niche " references. And with gratitude, Tokyogirl79 deserves a hearty thanks for her actual true diligence! Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was this rewritten since it's nomination for deletion? Looking at it now appears fine. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:49, 9 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Chan (philanthropist)[edit]

Priscilla Chan (philanthropist) (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)

Not enough here for GNG. Most all info out there is still shirttail stuff to her unambiguously notable husband. Suggest deletion, not redirect, as her undisambiguated name already redirects to her husband. John from Idegon (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Several major news media have had articles about her in which she is the main topic. She is an important philanthropist. Gap9551 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow KEEP She is being independently profiled in the press; I'll do a little sourcing. Note That Wikipedia has an enormous number of articles about individuals notable for being spouses extremely notable people. We have whole categories (categorized by state) of political spouses alone. Typical example: Chloe Merrick Reed. The political spouse does not have to write books, have a significant career or do anything. He or she just has to be profiled in major media, (think Todd Palin). WP:GNG gauges notability according to the existence of sources that are reliable, significant, verifiable, etc. It does not matter what a subject is notable for. We hashed out similar issues in a recently closed-as-keep AFD on Candy Carson. Profiles in major media are the gold standard of BPL notability. Chan has them. We should make her name direct to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - according to Slate magazine, Chan has a "formidable influence" on Zuckerberg's philanthropy [1]. Having a formidable influence on a $45 billion foundation (which bears her name before Zuckerberg's) makes her notable beyond reasonable doubt. See also Melinda Gates, another famous philanthropist who starts out as a billionaire wife. -Zanhe (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several newspapers in Chinese describe her since the "donation" event."不是鳳凰 臉書執行長祖克柏的亞裔妻子"."祖克柏當爸 捐臉書99％持股「給後代更美好世界」"."薩克柏愛行善　受老婆影響大". She is become famous not only in the U.S., but also in Chinese. Zero00072 (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while I'm personally on the fence as to whether Priscilla is independently noted enough for her own merits to warrant a separate article, keep in mind that she needs to be noted for more than just family connections to have her own page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Suggest deletion, not redirect, as her undisambiguated name already redirects to her husband – actually the undisambiguated name Priscilla Chan has always been an article about a Hong Kong singer. There's a move request to send that to Priscilla Chan (singer) so that Priscilla Chan could be either a WP:TWODABS + 1 typo or a redirect to information about Mark Zuckerberg's wife (whether that's its own article or a subsection of his article). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The recent growth in the number of sources that are distinctly about her has increased recently and are reflected in this article, supporting the claim of standalone notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Way beyond sufficient separate coverage in reliable sources; nominating women for deletion because they have notable husbands is a Wikipedia trend that needs to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect - In "Priscilla Chan (philanthropist)", with the exception of information about Chan, the only thing that I can see that is not mentioned in Mark Zuckerberg is "The Primary School". For this reason, if the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Mark Zuckerberg per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the sources cited by the article show, she obviously generates enough press coverage to be notable. Even if much of her activities are connected to her husband, the fact that she is going to be directly involved in the allocation of $billions of philanthropic funds, makes her a figure of independent interest. The obvious comparable is Melinda Gates. The Gates Foundation has had a major impact on the world, making the key figures involved in it figures of public interest. The same is sure to be true here as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has become notable enough that her biography will be of interest. The alternative of keeping a large section on Zuckerberg's page devoted to his wife seems to be decidedly worse. Note that even though she might not have founded Facebook, she is currently a billionaire. She also closely advises Zuckerberg on, among other things, his recent forays into China leading to the possible unblocking of Facebook and future competition with the Chinese web giant Baidu. Several verifiable claims to notability like this have not worked themselves into the page yet, and once they have, notability should be easily met. Give editors some time. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Absolutely meets WP:BIO. What a nonsense for AfD. STSC (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• # of page views argues for keep [2], I think we can slose as WP:SNOWBALLE.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:24, 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 keep. Sam Walton (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hewlett[edit]

Jason Hewlett (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)

• Delete Non-notable. Entire article reads like spam and self-promotion. Ffffrank (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is true that, "Entire article reads like spam and self-promotion." I'll add: boring. Which is not smart for a comedian. Some fan should come fix it. The article does have a list of links to sources; lousy sources. Several are in real news outlets, but, as I said, unpersuasive when you click. So I ran a simple google news search on his name. I don't iVote delete without running a search. And I was stunned by the hits. Here's my search:[3]. Turns out that is a "family-friendly" (i.e., no foul language) comedian, with real coverage in real newspapers: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] OK, so those were all in Utah, which, as many of you know, is not really part of America. (joke) I kept scrolling, and next up a long feature article an interview in Forbes: [9]. There are more. But I'll stop here except to say that Nom ought to have WP:BEFORE before taking up our time with this. Bad article does not always = lack of notability. In this case, it may only mean that there are whole, vast swaths of America where nobody is interested in editing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thanks for taking the time to do some research. I did read WP:BEFORE and to be perfectly honest, this is all new to me and it is possible that I skipped a step. Your sources do demonstrate... something? Not sure if it rises to level of "notability" but it may. I suppose at the least, I find fault with the content of the article and it doesn't appear that the content has generated much interest or editors over the last few years. There are a lot of facts but they do not seem to come from relevant and published secondary sources. I'm assuming they come from a press release. I don't feel comfortable removing 90% of the articles content but perhaps that is a better solution and will inspire one of his fans to fill it back in with properly cited information? --Ffffrank (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I've been there, run searches and missed major stuff stuff. I think the newspaper stories I linked to plus the Forbes article are dispositive. and that your next move should be to withdraw the nomination. I totally agree with you that this paltry, old, neglected article is a problem, it's a widespread problem. There are a lot of article like this out there, Articles in desperate need of editing. I just don't think AFD is the solution. Encouraging more people to come edit might be. I'm outta here. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and welcome. I'm fairly new myself. Frankly, I found the place so off-putting (aggressive, mean-spirited) that I would have quit - except that there is a group of POV editors working to push me off. It made me so mad that I decided to stick around. I hope you will, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. @Ffffrank: If you'd like, you can always withdraw the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only if there is actually considerably coverage about him. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't see any reason to keep this. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the sources above that demonstrate the subject's notability, as per WP:BASIC? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The content reads like self-promotion by a performer. He seems to have had a full-time contract for some years in the mid-2000s, after which the biography seems full of gaps. This probably means that he was earning his living by other means and only occasionally appearing as a performer. This suggests to me that he has commercially been a comparative failure, which in turn suggests that he is NN. My concern is with notability, not sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Puzzled by Peterkingiron's comment. Sources are how we gauge WP:NOTABILITY. The sources cited above are significant, extensive, in-depth... As for a putative career break, it makes no difference to notability (WP:nottemporary) and is OR, but note that the Forbes article ran fall 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Even if citations were added for the achievements listed on this page, the subject would still not qualify for his own wikipedia page. I agree with the previous comments that the article reads as self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep changed to delete. I see this a lot: a subject has a knack for creating press for himself without any kind of notable achievement that has had an impact or created significant recognition. Even the opening sentence of the Forbes article cited here admits the guy "isn't famous." And yet the self-created press seems plentiful enough that it *does* fit within WP:NOTABILITY rules. Personally I'm frustrated by the scores of such folks of marginal entertainment industry achievement meriting Wikipedia entries based on local "appearing-on-stage-tonight"-type press clippings---often the result of their own PR efforts---but those *are* the rules. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not what the Forbes article says. It credits him with having renounced the chance at a mainstream career out of Christian commitment, and with having a notably successful professional career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• hmmm. E.M Gregory's comment here got me to take a second look at the Forbes article. Unless this appeared in the print version--and considering this "article" serves as a gateway to the columnist's weekly live on-line interview on social entrepreneurship---I'm thinking this is not significant coverage at all. It has little over 400 views. Views of his online (You Tube) posts also number in the hundreds. This is why I'm now changing my vote to Delete. This subject is no doubt successful as a corporate entertainer, but that doesn't mean he's notable. I'm even more convinced now his greatest talent is beating his own drum. I should note a recent online story about cheating-but-not-cheating on his wife went viral, racking up hundreds of thousands hits. But this "story" appears more of a "plant" rather than independent coverage, attesting even more so towards his ability to gin up his own coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some Youtube videos hit [10], [11]. Let's keep this discussion accurate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Deseret News is a major daily, and the hits on google news [12] and the articles listed above are more than enough to pass WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I pretty much blanked the page, rewrote what I could source. page had not been updated in a long time. Accused here of self-promotion, Hewlett certainly did not update his page when he resumed his stage career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Editors new to AFD should understand that the question we address here is not whether the page is well-written, promotional, or even whether the page is sourced. Our question is whether sources about the topic exist (even though they are not currently on the page) and whether they are sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. As experienced editor User:Northamerica1000 notes above, it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEYMANN page is entirely re-written. I believe that in its present form and sourcing, it would not be brought to AFD by any editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I disagree with the concept that we don't delete articles which are highly promotional per WP:DEL4, that can be a valid reason, I don't think this article, especially after the editing done in recent weeks, qualifies per that rationale. And since that has been taken off the table, the sources clearly pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer)[edit]

Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer) (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)

Delete Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - two first class appearances in this case versus one in the other case, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are four more similar articles with AfD at the moment S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer) {closed as delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor (Delhi cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farook (Saurashtra cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer). SageGreenRider (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:CRIN and per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer). This needs proper discussion at the relevant WP project, not in this piecemeal way. Johnlp (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject of the article played first-class cricket for Madhya Pradesh, which means at one point he was considered one of the eleven best players in a state with tens of millions of people (where cricket is the most popular sport). Notability does not depend on the availability of biographical details – for example, there are many Olympic medalists whose full names are unknown (e.g. A. Haslam). IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is embuded not by some arbitrary skill ranking "top 11 out of tens of millions" but by substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Clearly no such sources have been found. NCRIC presumes they may exist but are hard-to-find. I refute that presumption in this case. For the Olympic gold medal of A. Haslam, I find it plausible such sources do exist because of the volume of coverage of the Olympics and the fact he was captain and won the gold medal. This case however is two everyday matches which might get a few column inches in a newspaper. It is therefore not plausible that Narain's contribution to first-class cricket received the substantial coverage that NCRIC presumes. SageGreenRider (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're understanding the popularity of cricket in India. Even in the 1950s, when cricket was followed less fanatically, a local cricketer making the state team could very well have made the front page of a particular city's newspaper. The matches in which Narain participated are far from everyday – the Ranji Trophy has been the pinnacle of non-international cricket in India since its inception, and during his time that was even more the case, as there were fewer teams than now. It's purely speculation to suggest the sources exist, of course, and the language barrier means I won't be the one to find them (unless somewhere along the line they're digitised and translated, which seems unlikely). You could argue that we shouldn't allow articles based on the mere possibility of sources existing, but I think if you allow A. Haslam to have an article then Narain has to have one too. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the two cases as polar opposite. One had a career that included captaincy of a team that won an Olympic gold medal. The other had a mediocre performance in a couple of games.SageGreenRider (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is seriously flawed and does not hold water. NCRIC presumes nothing. It states categorically that anyone who has played in a major match, which includes a first-class domestic fixture in India, is notable. As NCRIC or GNG must be satisfied, this player Narain is notable. He meets NCRIC so GNG doesn't matter. Furthermore, you are making presumptions about Indian cricket and its newspaper coverage that are way out of line. Your whole campaign against these articles, stubs though they may be, amount to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCRIC explicitly makes a presumption. It reads in part A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she... (my emphasis). I believe GNG trumps NCRIC. GNG is policy. NCRIC is a merely a guideline. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again! GNG and SPORTCRIT also explicitly use the word presumed. The key point is that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". Note that the word "or" is in there. This means that if the subject meets the SSC it does not also need to meet the GNG. Okay? And given that the primary SSC for cricket is playing in a major match, this subject is "presumed" to be notable. If you would like me to explain to you about major cricket in India, do let me know. Bye for now. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please WP:NPA. Your claim was "NCRIC presumes nothing" , however that is not correct. It offers a guideline that presumes notability based on one or more appearances. To presume means "To assume to be true (without proof); to take for granted, to suppose." A guideline is a guideline, nothing more. I believe that following the guideline leads to a false conclusion in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then your belief is wrong. And when have you been subjected to a personal attack? Is saying "Wrong again!" a personal attack!? GNG and NCRIC are both guidelines that presume notability. GNG is not superior to NCRIC because the subject has to meet one or the the other and not both. You are trying to twist the guidelines to suit your own purposes instead of reading and abiding by what they actually say. And don't come on here making false accusations about NPA, either. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly believe that "Wrong again" is a personal attack, then that is ridiculous for way too many reasons to list here. BlackJack simply stated that, for occasion > 1, your opinion was wrong. Nothing to do with a personal attack. If you're going to invoke dictionary definitions, I might as well invoke mathematics. Bobo. 20:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for "consensus", I still stand by my belief that there *was* no "consensus". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_6&diff=prev&oldid=694016031)Bobo. 20:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok So you now admit there is a presumption. Good. And I'll allow you one "Local boy makes good" article in the local rag. But GNG is more stringent than only one source. It insists on multiple, intellectually independent, reliable sources. It is not plausible that such sources exist in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article meets WP:NCRIC, which a closing admin was previously unaware of. IgnorantArmies makes a valid point above too. The guideline is simple and provides a level playing field for the inclusion of all cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level (or in some cases international between minor cricket playing nations). I also feel this would be best discussed at the project page. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NCRIC, and the only reason given for deletion is "it's like the other one that got deleted", which is bad logic, especially as I believe it was an awful decision to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason for the deletion nominations was given at the outset as "two first class appearances in this case versus one in the other case, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name." Lack of notability is the issue, obviously. The presumption in NCRIC that hard-to-find reliable source have substantially reported on Narain is implausible to say the least. There's simply nothing to write about. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I wouldn't be so sure there is nothing more to write about: there were two cricket annuals in India at the time he played, and one of them at least apparently carried biographies of all current first-class players (it was edited by Dicky Rutnagur). Maybe someone has or can find a copy? Johnlp (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - we appear to be becoming bogged down in numbers. How many appearances do you think should be appropriate to keep a cricketer on Wikipedia, SageGreenRider? Bobo. 21:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Bobo192 I think one appearance is sufficient if and only if the NCRIC presumption (that such an appearance triggered substantial coverage by reliable sources, which may or may not be to hand) is plausible. I do not believe that the presumption is plausible in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely the burden of finding a more reliable source lies on the person who is questioning the reliability of the quoted source - and from hence, governing it by their own criteria...? Bobo. 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played in a major match and so meets WP:NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if anyone has the energy to go through Wikipedia and tag indiscriminately for deletion every single one of the thousands of sports stars in every competitive team sport who have two or fewer appearances at top level, they have some considerable stamina! Bobo. 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry @Bobo192. Remember that scene in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones? As part of my evil pan-galactic conspiracy to expunge all mention of cr*ck*t from important documents like Wikipedia and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omission and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects. First, it is slightly cheaper; and second, it has the words DON'T PANIC inscribed in large friendly letters on the cover) I have a huge clone army of socks ready and willing to do my bidding. PS This is an attempt at humor to defuse a tense situation. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SageGreenRider - I know, I know, thank you for being understanding throughout all of this. (Signed, Beephod Zabblebrox). Edit: Never seen this reply-to template before, I like it. Bobo. 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • U r welcome signed pord fefect... Be sure to hang on to ur towel SageGreenRider (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is one question unanswered which is that multiple sources are required. We had CricketArchive as an external link only, which is admittedly not how citations should be recorded. I've found a second source in ESPNcricinfo and have put both of them into the body of the article/stub as inline citations. These are both reputable sources, especially ESPNcricinfo, and may be deemed reliable for this purpose. As for other "unknown" sources, there will be plenty. Johnlp has rightly pointed out that there are Indian cricket annuals, at least one of which provides biographical info re major cricketers. And there is Wisden, which will almost certainly have a reference if anyone has access to the relevant edition and can find the right page(s). In terms of primary sources, Indian newspapers carry extensive coverage of cricket matches (and I mean extensive; it matches coverage of football in GB) so there are certainly newspapers in archives that would tell us much about this player. The problem for us is finding them. So, in practice, we have to rely on CricketArchive (CA) and ESPNcricinfo (CI) to verify that this man did exist and did play in at least one officially recognised first-class match (per CRIN and NCRIC). It is worth mentioning that CA and CI being in accord adds strength to the verification because they do not always agree. Finally, to summarise our main argument, Narain played in a first-class match and he therefore satisfies the sport specific criteria (SSC) of NCRIC for presumed notability; which also means that reference to GNG in his case is superfluous because the rules clearly state he must satisfy either GNG OR SSC, not both. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Force of habit from me I'm afraid. I tend to put all the information in the article and then a single external link - from which all the information in the article can be derived and validated. I see so many occasions in which the same links are quoted in the references and the external links, I never used to see the purpose of this. The question from me is whether I should have included both a CI and a CA link in all articles. Bobo. 11:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Opinion. In my opinion, it should not be necessary but, given the circumstances of cases like Narain and Perera and the rest, I think it would be wise to cite both. Also, use inline citations as an external link is often not seen as a reference because it is actually the equivalent of "further reading" for books. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question (mainly for @Bobo192) You say you have added hundreds of articles like this. During your contributions, have actual reliable sources with substantial coverage surfaced in cases like the five we have been debating recently? What I'm driving at is this: if you can show a pattern where this type of track record triggers coverage, you might have a case to argue against my belief (that such coverage is implausible). I know your presumed sources are unfortunately AWOL in these five cases. But some similar cases must yield something (games played in the era of the internet, for example). You could use such a pattern to extrapolate to this one. Make sense? hth SageGreenRider (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Most cricket biographies have begun as stubs which have one or both of CA or CI as an initial source. This is because we have, as a project goal, the creation of an article about every major cricket person and these two sites provide readily available listings of most if not all the players concerned. From that beginning, hundreds if not thousands of the basic stubs have been expanded as we have found extra information about the players in books like Wisden, Playfair, etc. or on the websites themselves, especially CI which tries to give each player a potted biography. We still have more stub-class biographies than start-class but there is no reason why the vast majority will not in practice be developed, given time, or in theory all of them. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK but can you point me to some specific examples of articles about players who have a single first class appearance and whose performance during that appearance was -- shall we say -- modest and whose article contains citations to substantial coverage in reliable sources? SageGreenRider (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try Arthur Coleridge as a one-match player who started out as a basic stub, but turned out all right in the end. Johnlp (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. Thanks. He played cricket once for Cambridge University, but his bio published by them only mentions his legal career and his music. No mention of his cricketing for them at all. SageGreenRider (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, for that, you would have to go to the reliable Cricketarchive and Cricinfo websites, which was where I started from without knowing anything more than that he had played a single first-class cricket game 160+ years ago. Johnlp (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SageGreenRider I'm not certain how to answer this question personally, because the basis of deciding what makes and does not make a reliable source is really an opinion of the individual questioning it. One person's opinion of an "actual reliable source" can, as I'm sure you'll understand, vary greatly from another. As for people with a single first-class appearance and a decent career, however you wish to phrase it, that's really up to individual opinion and therefore I can't answer it. The guidelines we work to have *one* criterion, are easy to follow, easy to understand, easy to adhere to, and therefore, easy to weed out the unacceptable. If we start inventing new criteria, where do we stop? Bobo. 17:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK How about you give me what you consider to be the three best articles about about players who have a single first class appearance and whose performance during that appearance was modest. SageGreenRider (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that, for the reasons I explained in my previous comment. Bobo. 18:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... OK How about give me the three that have the most citations returned by the Wikipedia Reference Search link (wrs) in the tool ((Find sources 4|article title goes here)). By the way, NCRIC isn't an objective, hard-and-fast rule. It's merely a guideline. It says in part (at the top where the anchor is WP:NSPORTS) Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:35, 8 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer)[edit]

Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer) (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)

Delete Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. Didn't even bat. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are four more similar articles with AfD at the moment S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer) {closed as delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor (Delhi cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farook (Saurashtra cricketer), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer). SageGreenRider (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:CRIN and per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer). This needs proper discussion at the relevant WP project, not in this piecemeal way. Johnlp (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer). IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article meets WP:NCRIC, which a closing admin was previously unaware of. IgnorantArmies makes a valid point above too. The guideline is simple and provides a level playing field for the inclusion of all cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level (or in some cases international between minor cricket playing nations). I also feel this would be best discussed at the project page. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NCRIC, and the only reason given for deletion is "it's like the other one that got deleted", which is bad logic, especially as I believe it was an awful decision to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason for the deletion nominations was given at the outset as "a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. Didn't even bat." Lack of notability is the issue, obviously. The presumption in NCRIC that hard-to-find reliable source have substantially reported on Mehta is implausible to say the least. There's even less to write about on the topic than the others. Didn't even bat! SageGreenRider (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played in a major match and so meets WP:NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:03, 7 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farook (Saurashtra cricketer)[edit]

Farook (Saurashtra cricketer) (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)

Delete - Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. SageGreenRider (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are four more similar articles with AfD at the moment S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer) {closed as delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor (Delhi cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer). SageGreenRider (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:CRIN and per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer). This needs proper discussion at the relevant WP project, not in this piecemeal way. Johnlp (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer). IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article meets WP:NCRIC, which a closing admin was previously unaware of. IgnorantArmies makes a valid point above too. The guideline is simple and provides a level playing field for the inclusion of all cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level (or in some cases international between minor cricket playing nations). I also feel this would be best discussed at the project page. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NCRIC, and the only reason given for deletion is "it's like the other one that got deleted", which is bad logic, especially as I believe it was an awful decision to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason for the deletion nominations was given at the outset as "a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name." Lack of notability is the issue, obviously. The presumption in NCRIC that hard-to-find reliable source have substantially reported on Farook is implausible to say the least. There's simply nothing to write about on this topic either. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played in a major match and so meets WP:NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:02, 7 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoor (Delhi cricketer)[edit]

Manzoor (Delhi cricketer) (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)

Delete Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. SageGreenRider (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are four more similar articles with AfD at the moment S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer) {closed as delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farook (Saurashtra cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer). SageGreenRider (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:CRIN and per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer). This needs proper discussion at the relevant WP project, not in this piecemeal way. Johnlp (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer). IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article meets WP:NCRIC, which a closing admin was previously unaware of. IgnorantArmies makes a valid point above too. The guideline is simple and provides a level playing field for the inclusion of all cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level (or in some cases international between minor cricket playing nations). I also feel this would be best discussed at the project page. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NCRIC, and the only reason given for deletion is "it's like the other one that got deleted", which is bad logic, especially as I believe it was an awful decision to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason for the deletion nominations was given at the outset as "a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name." Lack of notability is the issue, obviously. The presumption in NCRIC that hard-to-find reliable source have substantially reported on Manzoor is implausible to say the least. There's simply nothing to write about on the topic. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played in a major match and so meets WP:NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:02, 7 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. joe decker^talk 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NATURAL[edit]

NATURAL (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)

Another 4GL but without a single meaningful reference despite being around since 2006. Fails WP:GNG. I can see nothing especially notable about this which maybe why there are no refs  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: My searches are mainly turning up firms proposing migration from ADABAS/NATURAL rather than in-depth coverage of the 4GL itself. A comment on the article Talk page suggests that reference material is available to licensed users on the vendor's site, but that would be primary sources. NATURAL itself already has brief context coverage on the ADABAS and Software AG pages. Falls short of WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's nothing to even suggest minimal general notability so delete for now until a better article is available. Notifying past user Macrakis. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - due to the commonality of the name, researching was difficult. Did not find any information on the searches which seemed to be about this particular subject. Ping me if someone turns up in-depth reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 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 delete. joe decker^talk 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lee[edit]

Angela Lee (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 MMA fighter, only three professional fights - non-top tier. Does not meet WP:NMMA. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter since she has no top tier fights. Her pankration titles were as a junior, which does not show notability. So she doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters, martial artists, or the GNG since there's a lack of significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned by other editors, she fails WP:NMMA, WP:MANOTE, and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above editors. Fails WP:NMMA, WP:MANOTE, and WP:GNG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Article's been made in to a redirect by the editor below so <smmall>(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsaan syed-hussain[edit]

Ihsaan syed-hussain (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)

Dupkicated page Cricarchive (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an artifact of a page-move to correct capitalization. After opening this discussion, the page was nominated for speedy-deletion. Speedy-deletion has been declined. I see no reason for regular deletion, either. Redirects for capitalization variants are routine and sometimes helpful. I would not deliberately create a redirect like this but once created, there is no value to deletion. Keep. Rossami (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I converted it back to a redirect. —teb728 t c 13:01, 4 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. joe decker^talk 19:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Knight Studios[edit]

White Knight Studios (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)

Other than the an under-construction website for the company I can find no indication it even exists. Absolutely zero evidence of notability seems to exist. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Singh (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete seems to meet CSD A7 to me – no credible claim of notability that I can see _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - That's embarrassing. The website under construction isn't bad except that it appears to be a newly registered domain. That tells me that they aren't even off and running yet. Nothing in Google to even lead me close to the door of notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Probably should have been speedily deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 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 redirect to Animal Welfare Party. (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hudson[edit]

Vanessa Hudson (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:NPOL. Hudson has never been elected. She heads a very minor political party, that has never achieved even 1% of the vote in any election they've stood. All the material here could be better covered under Animal Welfare Party. The article has 3 citations: the first is not independent, the second is to a minor local publication, while the third is more substantive, but the latter two are both covering Hudson's candidacy, so this comes under WP:NPOL that says being a candidate alone is not notable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be more interesting than those sources: [13]

That is an interview with Hudson about her party's campaign in an election. Such material is better covered under the party than the individual, as per WP:1E. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Being the leader of a political party, even a minor one, can be enough of a claim of notability if the sourcing is solid enough to satisfy WP:GNG — but it does not constitute an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, and the level of sourcing here isn't good enough. And being a non-winning candidate in the general election doesn't provide any sort of notability assistance at all. Until such time as there's enough substantive and properly sourced content about her to justify a standalone BLP, the appropriate solution is for her to be briefly discussed in the party's article rather than spun off like this. Redirect to Animal Welfare Party or delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bearcat and nominator. My sweeps did not find much. Fringe party, not many votes, not much to suggest notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Change to Keep as per Vanamonde93's weigh-in, below.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bearcat is correct of course, and in such a situation I would ordinarily tend delete; but when looking, I found the following; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Of these, 1 and 5 in particular strike me as substantive enough to let the subject meet GNG. Bearcat, Tomwsulcer, what do you think of these? Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those items, even 1 and 5, are about the Animal Welfare Party's campaign in the 2015 Euro-elections and about Hudson as leader and spokesperson for the party and its campaign. As per WP:NPOL and WP:1E, you can have lots of material about someone but if it's all about a specific event (which in the case of politicians means all about a specific election campaign), then it is generally more appropriate to have an article about the event, not person. In this case, as I see it, that means those citations can and should be used in the article for the Animal Welfare Party or for that particular election. What I have not seen is anything showing notability for Hudson beyond that campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am just going by Wikipedia's guideline which says a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list, and clearly, with articles in the BBC and Independent plus elsewhere, she meets the guideline; if Wikipedians change the guideline I'll change my vote, although personally I agree, VH is not that notable overall.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:1E and WP:NPOL are guidelines too and they moderate WP:GNG. I suggest we need to consider all relevant guidelines in their totality. That is what Wikipedians want and do. Bondegezou (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not ignoring those guidelines; I have read them, and take them into consideration. In my opinion, the nature of the coverage here is such that an individual article is justified. The guidelines allow for some wiggle room, where judgement calls need to be made; this is one such. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello again. Let me start by correcting myself. The citations given aren't all from the Euro-elections: they span the Euro-elections in 2014, the general election in 2015 and the Tower Hamlets mayoral by-election later in 2015. My apologies for my earlier error. Citation 1 is from 6 May 2014. Very little of the article is about Hudson as a person; nearly all of it is about the Animal Welfare Party's political positions and their 2014 Euro-election campaign. Citation 2 is from 1 May 2015: it is a local newspaper with a short mention of Hudson. Hudson is standing in at the hustings for the Animal Welfare Party's candidate in the 2015 general election. There is nothing in the citation about Hudson: it is all about the party's policies. Citation 3 is about the Tower Hamlets mayoral election in June 2015, with Hudson standing. It includes merely half a sentence about Hudson and the AWP. Citation 4 is about the same mayoral campaign: there is a brief mention of Hudson and, again, it's all about the party's positions and nothing about Hudson as a person. Citation 5, which is the same as the citation given higher up, is from April 2015 and is about the general election campaign. This is an interview with Hudson, but again about the party and its campaign. There is nothing in it about Hudson as a person. WP:GNG requires coverage of the subject of the article. These citations demonstrate that the Animal Welfare Party passes WP:GNG. They do not, as far as I can see, demonstrate that Vanessa Hudson passes WP:GNG. There is certainly some wiggle room in the guidelines and judgement calls are needed. However, I don't see the material here to populate an article about Hudson. Bondegezou (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Thank you @Bearcat: for the logic. Most people don't get that in depth. In this case, that is a great assessment as even failed politicians can be notable under WP:GNG. Unfortunately, the information I am finding is more specific to Animal Welfare Party where this should be redirected. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above, possibly merge somewhat. Coverage seems to be mostly about the party rather than the person. Can be spun out again if she gets more coverage personally.  Sandstein  20:39, 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 delete. joe decker^talk 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Rankings[edit]

List of FIFA World Rankings (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 translated page from Lijst van FIF wedreldranlijsten on the Dutch language Wikipedia. It is, simply, a data dump of the top 3 ranked national teams by month in the FIFA rankings, plus the position of Belgium and Netherlands. The page is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; it is an indiscriminate dump of statistics and nothing else. FIFA World Rankings currently exists documenting the current rankings and monthly leaders, as well as other ranking-related records and prizes. This page's added-value - listing 2nd and 3rd for each month - does not seem worthy of an encyclopedia page.

Clearly, if kept, the page would need renaming but that can be left to deal with in the event of that outcome. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : arbitrary at best. Perhaps the list at the end of the cumulative times teams have been 1st/2nd or 3rd could be incorporated into the FIFA World Rankings page. Matilda Maniac (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTSTATSBOOK — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The main page FIFA World Rankings contains more than enough statistics. I also see no reason why Belgium and Holland deserve special status in this. Spiderone 10:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 08:52, 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 Nomination withdrawn McGeddon (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Hendra[edit]

Sue Hendra (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:NAUTHOR: no secondary sources about the author, just a few book reviews. McGeddon (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator / speedy keep, I'd evidently misread NAUTHOR and didn't think reviews were sufficient. Apologies for wasted time. --McGeddon (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes Author #1: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The reviews in RS support this claim. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't true there are no secondary sources about the author herself. I added the Baker and Taylor author biography to the article prior to the nomination for deletion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this currently seems notable and acceptable as I'm currently typing this. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I spent a bit of time yesterday researching Sue Hendra and she is genuinely a substantially publisher author. It's interesting that she'd never had a page before. It's probably because she write books for small children. That's probably an example of the bias that sometimes exisits in Wikipedia. Seaweed (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passes the first criterion of WP:NAUTHOR in my book; multiple reviews in secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Hendra meets WP:AUTHOR as reflected in article, here are some more reviews; from Publishers Weekly - [14] for Oliver's Wood - " Hendra turns the tables on diurnal creatures--such as humans--by presenting darkness and light as basic matters of perspective. .. The oversize type, simple shapes and minimal plot best serve beginning readers, and Hendra's gentle animals demystify nightfall even as she puts a sweet spin on the concept of bedtime." and some from Kirkus, [15] for Dragon Jelly - "while Hendra and Linnet choose a festive, neon pastel palette set against a black background to make the festivities truly pop.", [16] for Oliver's Wood - "Hendra's simple text has flair: The adjectives conjure up funny images, while the story gives readers plenty to think about, without ever using the words nocturnal and diurnal.", [17] for Monsters Don't Eat Broccoli - "The vibrant gouache illustrations capture the silly playfulness of the text as goofy, rounded, toothy monsters delight in their odd meals in a variety of settings." and another review from SMH[18] for Supertato - "this book is delightfully silly, .. Kids will love it, and it may even encourage them to eat their veggies."Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 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. joe decker^talk 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASHISH SARAF[edit]

ASHISH SARAF (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)

Diplomats aren't usually notable unless they have been covered in reliable sources. While he does have a credible claim to notability as the first Indian consul to the Bahamas, surprisingly there's little coverage about him. The only sources that are about him are about him receiving a gift of appreciation from Bahamas officials, and the rest are statements by him and not about him. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The person who created this article has no past record for wiki edits. Mr. Saraf is also not looking notable. sameergoswami (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Singh (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Singh (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't find enough in-depth articles on search engines to show they meet notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 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 merge to Bikas Mishra.  Sandstein  20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DearCinema.com[edit]

DearCinema.com (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 page creator seems to have a COI with this. She also created the page Bikas Mishra who is the founder of DearCinema.com and spammed the links everywhere unnoticed all these years 1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. The Avengers 09:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The site dearcinema.com is down right now. The Avengers 09:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dearcinema.com was deleted two times, and the page created changed the caps.--The Avengers 07:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This article can be merged with Bikas Mishra. Other wise Delete sameergoswami (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect to Bikas Mishra. Can't see any notability of the site alone. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dearcinema.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Zapantis[edit]

Gregory Zapantis (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 procedural nomination, as I have no strong opinion on the article's existence. The article's creator has been trying to get it deleted (via speedy and prod), with the rationale "relatives requested this page with his info to be completely deleted from wikipedia"; but no speedy-deletion criterion is applicable, and the article can't be prodded, since there was a previous AfD in 2013 (with low turnout and a "no consensus" result). As a result of the creator's efforts, it's completely unreferenced at the moment; the last version with refs is here. Though a request by relatives is not a reason for deletion, I think a case can be made for nonnotability here. Deor (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything other than very brief references in the media (eg on restaurant reviews, recipes etc), so under the circumstances I think it is fair to say that the subject is not notable as per WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per above. Even without the subject's relatives' requests this could easily have ended up here again and been deleted as non-notable. Lacks the coverage required to demonstrate such notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there are a couple of sources that mention him, but his mention is tangential to the point of the articles. Can't find many reliable non-primary sources in which he is the topic of the article, rather than simply mentioned.  DiscantX 08:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I have just reverted the article to a previous version with references and external links. --Racklever (talk) 09:05, 4 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. joe decker^talk 19:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Seales[edit]

Caleb Seales (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 general notability. External links do not mention subject except one credit embedded in a photo. Blackguard 07:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable videographer and college student. Completely lacking in significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, as required by the general notability guidelines. Article was apparently created by the subject himself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:23, 4 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. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya school articles[edit]

(View AfD · Stats)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Barrackpore (Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Charbatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dahi Chowki Unnao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Danapur Cantt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dewas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ernakulam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT Powai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kanjikode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kottayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC Dibiyapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, No. 1, Kankarbagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, No. 2, Nausena Baugh, Vizag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pattom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Puranattukara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rajgarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ramavarmapuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sundargarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kayamkulam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya 9th Mile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Adoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Aurangabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya BEML Nagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Bamrauli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Bolarum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Ganeshkhind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Guna, Madhya Pradesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Hebbal, Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya IIT Kanpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Karaikudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Karwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Malappuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Maligaon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Malleswaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Mankhurd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Muzaffarpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, AFS, Lohegaon, Pune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalahalli, Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 AFA, Dundigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ahmednagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Bhubaneswar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Hubli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2 AFA, Dundigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Salt Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, Agra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 4, Gwalior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Halwara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Nowrozabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Ottapalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Pangode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Rourkela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Tenga Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Tirumalagiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sikar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kendriya Vidyalaya INS Mandovi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These Indian secondary school articles part of a school system (Kendriya Vidyalaya) are not independently notable. All the articles contain no secondary sources at all and carry large amounts of unrefernced fluff with promotional tone, some of which I recently tried to clean up. There is also a lot of duplication of information with the main article, since all the KV schools share the same features – affiliation, syllabus, fee structure, admission policies, etc are all the same.

I don't think there's anything worth merging into the main article. The only things that can be merged are perhaps the year of establishment and locational settings into List of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Everything else is unsourced or sourced with primary sources, and duplicative, or unencyclopedic WP:NOTDIR stuff.

As an alternative to deletion, we may also consider redirecting the pages to List of Kendriya Vidyalayas, or stubifying each article to 2-3 sentences, covering the non-duplicative details, that is, the year of establishment and locational settings. If/when one of the schools gets coverage in reliable source, its article could be expanded.

103.6.159.81 (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a reason here to show why Indian secondary schools are not notable - I'd have thought they're at least as notable as British state schools, most/all of which have a wikipedia page. The poor state of the current pages is not a reason to delete. JMWt (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Mass deletion! without even catering to each article simple deletion of years of work by few authors, if any bias would be found it should be treated on case by case basis. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as secondary schools per longstanding precedent and consensus. Mass deletion proposals like this are very unhelpful in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are over 1090 KV schools out which only the 60 listed above have articles -- even though they are no different from the 1000+ that don't have artilces. They were probably created by people with obvious COIs. If someone does a a real cleanup on an article, then there would be hardly anyhting left on it. We should either be mass-deleting these existing articles (my suggestion), or mass-creating articles for the remaining ~1030 KV schools. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being a good article is not a good reason for deletion. Having an article when similar subjects don't is not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ALLORNOTHING comes under arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. There is a consensus among editors that all high schools are notable and reliable source coverage can be found for them eventually. The fact that so few KV schools have articles can be attributed to a systemic bias against topics outside the Anglosphere, not a lack of importance. Finally, let's assume good faith in article creation. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all.We keep articles on all secondary schools. Some of these articles are fairly well developed, some stubs. The stubs are easy enough to expand--they make , reasonably enough, good projects for school classes. Wikipedia, as a matter of principle, is an encycopedia that covers the world , subject geographically only to the limitation that the articles be written in the English language, and that the choice of articles included will therefore inevitably reflect the interests of those who can write in English. I think it is possible that at the very beginning we may not have realised the very great number of topics possible in countries like India and Pakistan,whee some degree of English is known widely and where many people who know even a little are eager to write in English. Aspects of life where we are not the least surprised at receiving detailed treatment for areas in the UK or US (or Canada , Australia, NZ) seem over-coverage for us when applied to India (and we can expect this elsewhere) . To avoid having to debate the merits of each of the 10s of thousands of high schools in each country, we made a compromise to keep them all, but to not generally keep primary or secondary junior high schools except as redirects to the district. We were of course thinking of the US primarily, but the same principle applies elsewhere. It applies to even more force in areas where we have relatively fewer accessible reliable sources. Do we really want to debate each of these--we'd have to spread it out, for I think none of us can properly examine in detail more than 2 or 3 articles of this sort at a time--even for the US, the discussions when we had them were extremely time consuming (which is what led to the acceptance of the working compromise). DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: - one line of your above seems contradictory to the rest: you say "high schools in each country, we made a compromise to keep them all, but to not generally keep primary or secondary schools except as redirects to the district". In British English, a Secondary school is the same as a North American High school. I think the policy is to keep any pages written about High/Secondary schools. JMWt (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed my wording--just a typo,and thanks for the correction; I meant junior high schools, not secondary schools I of course did mean we include High/Secondary schools, and their equivalents in other counries however designated, including the UK institutions called 6th form colleges. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least one statement of yours is patently untrue. stubs are easy enough to expand. The trouble here is that there are no secondary sources available at all. How then would expansion be possible? At best, one can find pieces like this one that merely mention a school. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All - I checked one, it had a 12th grade class, making it a high school — kept by longstanding consensus at AfD. This is a ridiculously overbroad nomination that is more or less an end run around established precedent on schools articles. So Procedural Keep on them all. Carrite (talk) 09:47, 10 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. I'm really tempted to not close this, so I can !vote Merge with List of articles with absurdly long titles, but duty calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, and SAG Award for a single performance in film[edit]

List of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance (2nd nomination)

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

This is a meta-list article synthesizing other lists, but there's no indication that these lists (film awards for acting) should be combined at all. Unlike, say, EGOT, this meta-list has been given no basis off wikipedia. In fact, the reason it wasn't deleted last time (besides no consensus) was that a source gave it such a basis — but it didn't. This article is asserting that the five most prestigious acting awards are the Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and Critics' Choice Awards. The source does not support this assertion. It does mentions seven awards— Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, Guild Awards, the National Board of Review award, Independent Spirit and assorted "Critics Awards". Guild Awards when applied to acting obviously means the SAG, and you can reasonably take out independent spirit by clarifying it's non-independent film. But conveniently ignoring the NBR is unjustified, in fact the source gives far more weight to the NBR than it does to the Critics Choice.

It mentioned the latter as one of several critics' awards— "The key groups in the US include the National Society of Film Critics, made up of 55 writers across the country, the LA Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle. The London Film Critics' Circle, comprising more than 80 members, issues awards recognizing British and international film talent. In recent years, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has aspired to usurp the status of the Golden Globes, with a televised ceremony of the unashamedly populist Critics' Choice Awards." If you interpret this text literally then the key groups in the US include NSFC, LAFC, and NYFCC. Then it mentions London as a key Critics' group out of the US. But it reserves a different clause for the Critics' Choice—separating it from other critics awards by noting its "unashamed populism" (critics awards are noted for not being populist and for being impartial to commercialism unlike academy-style awards) and saying it wants to usurp the golden globes. A more lenient interpretation is that all the groups are key Critics' groups— but therefore by the source there's no reason to just include the Critics' Choice and not all the groups it mentioned.

Now I didn't want to delete this article, so I changed it to conform to the source it used— I included the NBR and all the Critics' Awards it mentioned, and noted that those six awards were the more prestigious awards for contemporary English non-independent cinema, so as to not generalize unfairly. This change (and here's the most recent version of the page in the same vein by @Heisenberg0893:) was admittedly awkward but at least it was based on substance.

My edits got reverted. The reasons for reverting my edit was basically that, if I may quote comments on the talk page, it "overcomplicated [the page] and made [the page] too exclusive" and that "NBR isn't a significant award". That's all good and well, but we can't have a preconceived list of performances in our minds, pick criteria around our mind-list, and then say lists that happen to omit performances on our mind-list are "too exclusive". I understand the article's purpose- to note the most acclaimed performances in contemporary cinema with objective criteria, but the criteria isn't objective if it's selected subjectively. This feels like a cruft list, not to mention SYNTH. Time to ping those involved in the original deletion discussion. @Feedback: @Jaxsonjo: @SummerPhD: @Postdlf: @Edison:. I'll put in a request for comment on this on related wikiprojects as @Lapadite77: recommended. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the nominator demonstrates, the grouping (and in particular, the selection of the Critics' Choice award over all other critics' awards) is subjective and arbitrary. Here's a source that lists the "three most prestigious critics groups" in this context and doesn't mention the Critics' Choice award at all.
  I did in fact find some sources that mention specific actors/actresses as having won these five specific awards – quite possibly inspired by the existence of this article; namely this source and this source. But I'm not very convinced by these sources, and any treatment of these actors as a group is minimal. (By contrast, this source clearly treats actors who have won an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for the same performance as a group.)
  List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film, the twin of this article, should also be deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "cousin" of this page about television List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television. Anyway I also thought that New York Film Critics Circle and LA and National Society were more prestigious critics' awards, as your source says. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get what this article is trying to do, but it would better just to have an article "list of film performances considered the best", which unlike this article would apply to each mention contemporaneously without being biased by selecting contemporary film awards.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's another thing I'm concerned about, I don't want wikipedia to create "facts on the ground". None of your sources mentioning those awards grouped together precede the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. The EGOT is a notable concept. I don't understand the origin of this grouping of awards. Chunky Rice (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above editors. This list is original research, and doesn't meet WP:NOTESAL. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. There is no general linkage of these 'off-wiki', which makes this OR and a bit pointless. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - super duper arbitrary 166.137.96.95 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if this gets deleted (as Sideways pointed out) then so should List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film and possibly this List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television (though the latter might need a new thread, but it's similarly arbitrary). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - EGOT is only combo of notable awards thus far —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actors and directors get nominated in multiple award shows all the time, it's nothing new or worth noting. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with what all of you say, especially Blaze The Movie Fan post. Matt294069 is coming 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom and all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 5 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. joe decker^talk 19:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshe Jinpa[edit]

Yeshe Jinpa (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 is autobiographical, non-neutral, presents utterly unverifiable original research that reads as a bad advertisement for a non-notable self-styled guru, than as a relevant article. Aizen4515 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Autobiographical and self promotional. No indication of notability. Safiel (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Last surviving Confederate veterans. All Merges get redirected after so just closing as Merge (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felix M. Witkoski[edit]

Felix M. Witkoski (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)

"There is no evidence to document his service, and his subsequent, arbitrary backdating of his birth fits the mold of deliberate fabrication." False claimant for "last surviving" (not oldest) Confederate veteran, apparently covered by one (1) two-page source. 2/3 of the article recounts things he claimed to have done but actually didn't (as demonstrated by the OR which comprises the other 1/3 of the article). EEng (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really convinced that his apparently false claim to be a civil war veteran is, in and of itself, a reason to delete. On this, I see a few references in books to his claims and discussion of whether they can be true. Given that he died such a long time ago, I would think someone would have to look offline for better sources to determine whether he is really notable. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Last surviving Confederate veterans - the fact he claimed to be the last surviving veteran and was, for a time, feted as such is relevant to the topic, however I don't think he quite rises to the level for an individual article, given that his claim was false and it (seemingly) didn't become a celebrated fraud. However in the main article on the subject it's well worth mentioning and a redirect there is appropriate (and, if content is merged, required). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per The Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (with redirect, of course) per The Bushranger's rationale above. Although I am tempted to advocate deleting the article entirely, I believe a brief discussion of the subject at the article would be illustrative of the cottage industry that grew up around such "last Confederate" frauds, as well as the odd tradition of surviving "Confederate widows" who sometimes married much older men (often for their pensions) and some of whom lived well into the 20th Century. (Yes, I am a Southern homey, y'all.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Last surviving Confederate veterans. Seems notable enough for a mention at that page, but unless someone can provide better coverage, I do not see the justification for a stand-alone article here. Canadian Paul 19:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Last surviving Confederate veterans for reasons indicated above. I think that a merge in this case would benefit both articles: it creates a synergy and mutually provides context. I've added three two sources. But even as a Civil War impostor, and assuming he did live to be a Supercentenarian (old for a male) he is marginal as a stand alone article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of British supercentenarians. I'm giving little weight to the "keep" opinions by Jacona and Philip Cross because they do not argue in terms of sourcing, as per the applicable inclusion guideline WP:N / WP:BIO, but seem to argue that being very old makes a person inherently notable, which has no basis in our policies or guidelines. The last opinion supports either keep or redirect, and the one remaining "keep" isn't enough to save the article.  Sandstein  20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Masters[edit]

Catherine Masters (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)

Utterly unremarkable life puffed up with grand detail about which nursing home she lived in, # days before death during which she needed nursing care, father's change of career path, etc. Even if notable, recommend redirect to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB where sprightliness of complaint to Buckingham Palace might be noted. EEng (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The claim of notability is rather clear and remarkable, as evidenced by the ample reliable and verifiable sources that are unquestionably about the subject used to develop an article that provides appropriate significant coverage about her. The nomination demonstrates utterly remarkable disregard for the fact that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an unacceptable argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment demonstrates utterly remarkable disregard for the fact that WP:NOPAGE is a compelling argument for redirection. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC) What's utterly remarkable really mean, anyway? Isn't it kind of weird to combine such a dramatic intensifier with a humdrum word like "remarkable"? It's kind of like saying "intensly warm". [reply]

My comment demonstrates utterly remarkable disregard for WP:NOPAGE, a completely useless argument that is the exact equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just with fewer letters. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then we've come to the nub of the matter, since NOPAGE is part of applicable notability guidelines. No surprise you're disregarding it, though. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Individual articles on the oldest supercentenarians are relatively common (see List of oldest living people). As Catherine Masters was the oldest person in Scotland at the time she died, her inclusion is entirely legitimate. Some accounts of an 'ordinary' life (like your's and mine) should be included in Wikipedia, and an unusually long lifespan is the means to legitimise the inclusion of such an individual's biography. The current articles about supercentenarians do not go into any detail about any individual at all. In addition to the article already mentioned, the main ones are List of the verified oldest people, List of oldest living people by country and Oldest people, but this seems to the case for other articles linked from Template:Longevity. Philip Cross (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The current articles about supercentenarians do not go into any detail about any individual at all": That's why most of them are now being redirected to lists, per WP:PERMASTUB. EEng (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Scotland is not an independant country, so toss that argument. Fun story about getting the same card 5 years in a row though. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Importance and notability are not at all the same thing. While these articles about really old people aren't necessarily important, they receive a lot of attention, and that's really what gng is all about. Jacona (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question here isn't notability, but WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Keep, because I don't agree with this application of nopage.Jacona (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If not here, where would WP:NOPAGE apply? This one seems like the archetypical case. What am I missing? David in DC (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete then redirect to an appropriate longevity list. WP:NOPAGE is not at all equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps reading them both would help to understand why. Distinguishing between the two ought not be difficult. This is definitely a WP:NOPAGE situation. Nothing encyclopedic appears in any of the sources. The apology for five identical birthday cards from Prince William is cute, but hardly justifies a stand-alone bio. Deleting the article and then redirecting to an appropriate list serves the subject adequately and follows our general notability guideline (there ain't none here) and our reqirement of WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent reliable sources. The only sources here fit into the exception codified by WP:ROUTINE and WP:PERMASTUB. David in DC (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then redirect to an appropriate longevity list. We're seeing an awful lot of these oldest living people bio articles come up at Afd and I have to say I'm surprised we have so many. In this case, I agree WP:NOPAGE certainly applies. There is no lasting notability here. This otherwise unremarkable person lived for a long while. She got birthday greetings, etc. Other people after her will live very long lives in the UK, and congratulations to them all. But we don't need a lot of individual WP:PERMASTUBs on people such as this. Lists are the best way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable supercentenarian.--Inception2010 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "In 2009, [Masters] wrote to Buckingham Palace to complain that she had received a birthday card with the same design for five consecutive years." Cheeky old girl. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect Was the oldest living person in Scotland at the time of her death and has a well-sourced article. Until this whole "Non-notability" or "No Page"-stuff is resolved there should be put a stop onto all these AfD-nominations. 930310 (talk) 22:32, 5 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  20:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Meizhen[edit]

Luo Meizhen (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)

Longevity claimant that no one seems to believe. Recommend merge to appropriate Longevity Claims list, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB, possibly mentioning there that she was stubborn and lived in a shed. EEng (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't discussion about merging be handled on the talk page, or by an RFC? This is after all "Articles for deletion". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested earlier this fall that this kind of thing be handled via merge discussions on the article talk page. But it was felt that, because of the decade-long history of puppetry and disruption associated with longevity, the more public process at AfD would be preferable. EEng (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this perfectly illustrates the problem with these articles. One specialized group (in China) says she was 127 but another (western) group says they don't agree - and declare this or that person is the real oldest. I was just saying there are likely older people in China but that country is not counted in the "world's oldest" and "asia's oldest" breathing contest. It's a big guessing game. Delete Legacypac (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One group in China say she was 127, but no one else seems to agree, so that's a WP:FRINGE theory. Documentation in China is very poor, so it's very difficult to prove Chinese longevity claimants' ages. Nothing to do with China being "left out". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The longevity claim is disputed. There are no unambiguous sources to support any claim of notability. One based on longevity alone would not be enough, but it might at least support a merge or a redirect. Here, there's nothing notable to move to any longevity list. I don't oppose meerging it with longevity claims or longevity myths, but neither would I be troubled if this thing were simply deleted.
  I cannot imagine what a "keep" rationale for this turkey of an article would be, but I suppose I'll soon find out. David in DC (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article rescued by RAN and DC. The turkey is transformed into a swan. DiDC volunteers for a WP:TROUT David in DC (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to relevant list per WP:NOPAGE and PERMASTUB. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with Longevity claims. Coverage in reliable sources establishes notability per WP:GNG. If there's not much "worthwhile" information then a mini-biography could be created elsehwere. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are enough reliable sources giving information. The controversy need to be explained in detail. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Was featured many times in the media due to her claimed age. If she doesn't meet the GNG-requirements she should be merged to a relevant list, such as the one proposed by Ollie231213. 930310 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The question here on Wikipedia is not the pursuit of truth; it's notability and verifiablity. Wikipedia has articles about grey aliens, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that they exist. The claim of notability here is clear, and the reliable and verifiable coverage about the individual covers the claim of extreme age to provide an appropriate encyclopedic article. Alansohn (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are huge amounts worth saying about aliens, bigfoot, and Nessie, so standalone articles are appropriate. Not so here. EEng (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there's more than enough to say here about Luo Meizhen. It was the nomination (and a number of delete votes) that is based primarily on the argument that this is a "Longevity claimant that no one seems to believe", though you acknowledge that there is no obstacle here, whether the claim is true or not. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• there's more than enough to say here about Luo Meizhen: Really? Because the entirety of what the article says about her is this:

She was one of the Yao people and lived in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (GZAR), in a small village in Bama county known for the longevity of many of its residents, including a 106-year-old woman and 113-year-old man (in 2011). She lived in a shed with her 63-year-old grandson and his son. She was described as a nice, but stubborn woman with a strong character.

• It was the nomination (and a number of delete votes) that is based primarily on the argument that this is a "Longevity claimant that no one seems to believe": No, the nomination is about NOPAGE, as in "Recommend merge to appropriate Longevity Claims list, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB".

Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted. All you've done is repeat the same claims that have been rebutted already. Maybe you need to ask your favorite admin to shill for you here as well. Maybe its time you said farewell to Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk. I guess this means you won't be explaining how the three sentences above comprise "more than enough to say" about the subject. EEng (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the !wikilaw? What is the minimal number of words for an article, below which we delete? WP:NOPAGE (whether to create standalone pages) and WP:PERMASTUB (essay) do not mention the exact number. You keep referring to it as if it does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter for editorial judgment of course, but I think in general three short sentences doesn't qualify. EEng (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So four sentences make a sufficient article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "sufficiency" -- this isn't about meeting some threshold to be "good enough" for a standalone article. The question, again, is how to best present what there is to say about the subject. If there's so little to say that it can easily be said in a list entry, or in a minibio as discussed here [19]. The three short sentences in the article now probably fit. But there's no magic number of course -- sorry. EEng (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I am seeing tons of coverage and age is a notable achieve though this does appear to be dubious. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't at issue so coverage has nothing to do with it. EEng (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable, converting to nothing but a list entry diminishes the usability of the encyclopedia. Merging would result in clutter. A stand-alone page is definitely what we need for this and similar persons. Jacona (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Albeit disputed, her claim of longevity is clearly notable, from the level of coverage both before and after her death. There is enough information from the sources to write a standalone Wikipedia biography about her. "Ironically, Luo may have just been too old, as China had not built a reliable birth certificate system until decades after her birth" (Medical Daily) sums up the sentiment quite well. Deryck C. 19:22, 9 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.  Sandstein  08:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hurstville FC[edit]

Hurstville FC (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:GNG, does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a search to try and expand the page today for the club, but other than their own website there is little to no information on the club (other than a few mentions in local newspapers for results). The only other source I can think of for them could be Australian Croatian newspapers / sites. A few notable players have made their way through the club ... not sure that counts though. Floss (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, teams outside the top level of the Australian state leagues rarely get more than routine coverage, if that. Hack (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NCLUB, no indication of participation in competitions likely to aid fulfillment of WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, The club could have notability which go beyond game listings due to its special composition/history, but sources for that are not given in the article. Agathoclea (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not currently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 4 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. After further research, the consensus was clearly keep. Subsequent to the keep, will move the article to Carlo Bertinazzi. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bertinazzi[edit]

Bertinazzi (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)

Delete: thoroughly non-notable as actor. Confused joke of an article. Quis separabit? 03:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hmm. Searching under his full name (Carlo Bertinazzi), it seems he has an (albeit stubby) Italian Wikipedia article, an entry in the Oxford Companion to the Theatre (subscription only though sadly), and is the subject of a porcelain relief in the MOMA. Reserving an opinion on deletion for know, but these snippets suggest there might be more out there, so I'm willing to be swayed. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, move and improve. The naming of the article doesn't help when looking for sources, and presumably defeated the nominator - modern sources tend to refer to the subject as Carlo Bertinazzi (or even by his full name of Carlo Antonio Bertinazzi), and his contemporaries often seem to have referred to him just as Carlin. The subject was apparently one of the major comic actors of the mid-18th century, regularly playing the part of Harlequin at the Comédie-Italienne for several decades from 1741. Specialist theatrical encyclopedias standardly seem to give him a short entry (for instance, this one), he gets a lengthy entry in Treccani, and there is a very substantial earlier account of him by Maurice Sand (available through GBooks here). Note that his supposed correspondence with Clement XIV, which tends to appear towards the top of searches, is an early 19th century spoof (though possibly drawing its inspiration from anecdotes told by Bertinazzi himself). PWilkinson (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and move as above, the extensive entry in Treccani alone would be sufficient to justify an entry in WP. In addition of sources above, he was the subject of several biografies, such as Carlo Bertinazzi, dit Carlin by Pierre Nicolle and Simone Cusenier and more recently L'ultimo Arlecchino del re by Gianna Paola Tomasina. I see tons of reliable sources in Google Books, including several encyclopedias. The current title is inappropriate and somewhat misleading, anyway. Cavarrone 09:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if and only this can actually be improved as there are no current obvious signs of it and if not, simply delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SwisterTwister, it is obvious it "can actually be improved" if you only care to read the comments (and the sources) above yours. Stop disrupting the AfD process with such stupid comments. Cavarrone 07:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per the stuff that I found, and the more stuff + comments of others above. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:50, 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 delete. And salt.  Sandstein  20:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Prinzi (ceramist)[edit]

Giuseppe Prinzi (ceramist) (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 re-titling (to get around salting) of an article called Giuseppe Prinzi, which was twice previously deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Prinzi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Prinzi (2nd nomination). It was then salted for reasons given in the 2nd nomination. I am not tagging this one for G4 because the current article is somewhat different from the two deleted ones. For those who can't see the previous articles, please evaluate this article on its own, to decide of the person meetsWP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. I believe he does not - and if the result is delete, I would recommend salting this title as well. MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources do not provide notability, and the difference with the version I deleted is not significant.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not to be confused with Giuseppe Prinzi (sculptor) (1825-1895). This earlier sculptor has an article in Italian Wikipedia, while the "... (ceramicist)" does not. PamD 09:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another attempt at an article, Prinzi_(artist), was deleted in August of 2015. LaMona (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LaMona. That was actually just a redirect to one of the earlier articles, but I have now salted that title as well. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt (multiple re-creations) - per Ymblanter (can't see the deleted version as non-admin). But even without that, just looking on the current version: the included sources (blog, exhibition announcement, artist profiles) don't establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - removed the section about his "artistic language". Entirely unsourced, and full of puffery and jargon. GermanJoe (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. I don't know why the article wasn't speedy'd. Appears to be created by a single purpose account: Special:Contributions/Roller1540. 173.48.62.104 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, because a month ago I speedy deleted Marianna Yarovskaya, which is also a self-written agiography and has been previously deleted via AfD. Because this time the creator moved some lines here and there, my decision was overturned on DRN, and the article is still there, nobody cares. This was an overly negative experience for me. I would rather stay healthy than get several months off my life for an attempt to delete garbage from Wikipedia. Let it go through AfD; the community time will be wasted but then there will be no way it can get to DRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  And the reason I didn't speedy it was because it had previously been to AfD, and it didn't qualify for G4 (in my opinion, YMMV). It has a lot of history; otherwise I would probably have prodded it. I think it is a little too close to making "claims of significance" for A7. And yes, it was created by an SPA, and edited by another SPA and a couple of single purpose IPs - but that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per the nom and the above editors. And due to the activity of the article's creator, I would also agree with Salt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:31, 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 redirect to Thai greeting. Obvious target for redirect; WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wai (gesture)[edit]

Wai (gesture) (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 seem to be notable, all WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have an article at Thai greeting, probably change this to a redirect. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Early close and redirect to Thai greeting, as per Lerdsuwa. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Thai greeting per above. --Finngall ^talk 14:59, 3 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.  Sandstein  20:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Polli[edit]

Gino Polli (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 person appears not to be in any way notable. He served in the Italian army in the First World War, as did a lot of people, and saw action in several battles, as did a lot of soldiers. He appears to have received some passing mentions in documents of the time, but there is no in-depth coverage in the article, nor can I find any: not in Treccani, 0 hits in WorldCat, 0 hits on Google books (unless he wrote an article on Futurist art), 0 hits on JSTOR, 0 hits on Muse, 0 hits in Oxford Bibliographies. This appears to be a concoction of family history and wishful thinking, possibly with an element of misinformation (please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianco di Lierna for an example of a possible hoax by this editor). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• curiously always you? weird right?

Obviously you can see that the problem is not the article but that this user for personal reasons want attack me continuously and personally. Always and only he, unlike many others with whom I worked with pleasure and friendship in creating this articlewhich I think was right .always do with censorship.

Here you have all the deeply sources:

• Ettore Crosignati, The Memorial of Gino Polli, publisher Crosignani, Via Olmetto, 14 (1923–1940), Cubi, GdMI, Milan, Italy, 1926
• L'Artigliere, "Figure di Combattenti che scompaiono, Un Eroe del Vittorio Veneto" ("Figures of Fighters disappear, A Hero of Vittorio Veneto"), May 1926, Rome

--Alec Smithson (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lierna_Castle a simple example, this article was not initially part of a copyright violation from external sources but a simple translation of a wikipedia article, has been blocked by him. Just because I wrote. I asked if I could translate Wikipedia administrators, and I have confirmed that the translations can be made of other languages. Maybe I would have to add in the code that was translated, but it was only in part and changed in the syntax. Well then I changed everything and reduced the contents, was no longer a copy, but my personal wrote. And I tried to lift the blockade of the page. He did not allow it to do with imperative and threatening. And you see well the page is locked to anyone interested in making censorious, and PROCURED ALARM for violations of COPYRIGHTS. THIS IS NOT RIGHT. --Alec Smithson (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT and WP:NPA. - 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mid-ranking officer with no special achievements or notable decorations. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a very detailed article, obviously done with a great deal of work, but there is little evidence of this particular person's involvement. Also, the level of detail greatly outstrips the scope of the sources. The list of battles does not belong in this article, even if there were proof that he participated. One of the main sources, the Crosignati, does not appear in the main Italian union catalog of libraries, so its existence cannot be confirmed. There is something weird about the dates "(1923-1940)" on a book published in 1926. I checked the Italian sources that are available but none gave the kind of detail I find here. Basically, the article fails verification. Great amounts of it are unsourced. In particular, sources would be needed for the military awards, but are not given. The article says that he received many medals, but the [Italian list of medalists] turns up zero for his name. I find this article puzzling, but can't find a policy that would allow us to keep it. LaMona (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is yet another in a group of recent articles, challenged but invariably defended (although sometimes deleted or re-directed), which inflate and synthesize isolated factoids about a non-notable Italian family, location or person and list bibliographies and footnotes which don't substantiate the significance, history or connections alleged in the articles, e.g. Museo Giannino Castiglioni, Bianco di Lierna, Principality of Sperlinga, Lierna Castle, Lordship of Nanteuil (re-directed to House of Natoli). Apparently no one has found the time or means yet to interrupt this pattern, which continues to distract editors from improving the encyclopedia. If it can't be stopped, it should at least not suck up time from more productive contributions to Wikipedia. Delete. Swiftly. FactStraight (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's never-ending, FactStraight. Take a look at Emilio Polli, or at Polli Corporation, yet more of the same. Presumably there comes a time when this pattern of editing is considered disruptive; I've spent many hours rewriting some of these pages (Giuseppe Amisani, Giambattista Pittoni, Lierna (chair), Lierna etc.), and have received a number of (mostly barely comprehensible) personal attacks as a result.

I'm very concerned about the medals attributed to Gino Polli. While the useful site linked by LaMona appears not to be comprehensive (according to our article, the Croce al Merito di Guerra was awarded more than a million times), EricSerge's edit summary "Polli died 42 years before the founding of the Order of Vittorio Veneto. the statute establishing the Order did not provide for posthumous awards" makes me wonder (with all allowance for good faith) if we are looking not at muddled wishful thinking and poor understanding of Wikipedia practices, but at intentional dishonesty. I note that the Croce di Guerra al Valor Militare was instituted in 1922, after the end of the First World War, and that it can be awarded only in time of war ("La croce di guerra al valor militare non si conferisce altro che in tempo di guerra"). Alec Smithson, in what war did Polli receive that medal, and what is your source for this claim? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC

Support for general sweep, the more time I spend, the worse it is... I am not finding coherence in any place if not I am suspecting that everything is fake: I opened this meta:Vandalism_reports#79.40.139.19_-_Alec_Smithson_-_cross_wiki_spam after today's cross-wiki spam--C.R. (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Following prolonged and tedious discussion at User talk:Alec Smithson#Hoaxing #2, Alec Smithson has finally removed the Croce di guerra al valor militare from the medals attributed to Polli, so that issue at least is now resolved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it may be due to the language barrier but this article doesn't really establish what the subject is claimed to be notable for (not to mention some tone issues). Regardless, there does seem to be only a very limited number of sources which mention the subject, and at that the main ones are from the 1920s, which seems indicative of a lack of "significant coverage" to me per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I have only recently started watching this article develop. My sole edit is noted above. It was my hope that the recent activity in this article would develop it into an article that demonstrated clear notability with an appropriate number of reliable sources. However, that level of development has not come to pass. At this point it appears to be a genealogy/family history article more suited for a blog than an encyclopedia. I also find it telling that there is no corresponding article on the Italian Wikipedia as most of the sources for this subject are likely in Italian. It would appear that Polli did his duty to his country in time of war, but his contribution was not more notable or significant than the contributions of millions of others. EricSerge (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No bibliography about him, no special decorations or achievements. --Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 07:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I understand the author, he is creating history of his family, but will be better, if he create his own webpages about his family.--Yopie (talk) 19:07, 9 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.