The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lipog[edit]

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

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

I'm not much into Java, but this seems pretty obscure. I don't see much out there about it, mostly mirrors of this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent refs. The theserverside.com link in the article is too brief to be considered significant coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software. Dialectric (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Celeste[edit]

Aileen Celeste (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)

Seemingly non-notable and questionably improve as it seems she's not a major or otherwise active actress and the best I found was only this. At best, this could be moved to her one best known work but with seemingly only a few episodes, I question why and it seems deleting is best. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References consisting of a personal biography page and an IMDB entry do not constitute notability. I found nothing substantive that would do this (at least, not in English— if she is notable in the Spanish-speaking world, someone who speaks Spanish would need to provide evidence of this in the article). KDS4444^Talk 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I checked the Spanish Wikipedia for her and she does have an article but its references consist only of a link to IMDB and another link to a biography page— nothing independent. KDS4444^Talk 02:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and above editor. Nothing in English search engines to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The people arguing to keep failed to provide any policy-based arguments. In particular, I can find no policy which says that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matakana War Memorial[edit]

Matakana War Memorial (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)

NN. One of thousands of war memorials across New Zealand, and far from being a notable one - its main claims to fame listed here are that it is significant in its (relatively small) district, has been vandalised a few times, and has its own facebook page. Its sculptor is not notable enough to have his own article; neither are any of the names inscribed on it. A smaller article on the same subject by the same editor was recently merged into the Matakana article, which is where it properly belongs. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands" of war memorials in New Zealand? What's your source on that? According to the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, there are only 453. [1]--Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read that again. According to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the original register contained 453 First World War memorials. Since then, "many more memorials have been added". What's more, "At this stage it mainly includes civic First World War memorials and memorials from the New Zealand Wars and South African War" and "There are gaps in the records. We invite you to check your local memorials to see if they are on the register." So a list that initially included 453 items from one, albeit major, conflict, which has been significantly added to, is still incomplete, and does not yet include much from the years post WWI. As it stands, this massively incomplete register "over 900 memorials throughout the country" [2]. "Thousands" may be an exaggeration, but over 1000 is more likely than not - especially since a quick glance at the map for my local area shows several missing. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not "thousands" as in over 2,000 but maybe just over 1,000.--Oakshade (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "thousands" may have been an exaggeration on my part, but given what information is there, and what information is missing, I'd say that the total figure could well be somewhere around 1500. FWIW, I've done a more detailed check on the memorials listed for the city I live in - it lists 20 memorials close to the city, but I spotted at least nine missing. If that is consistent across the country, then there would be 45% more than the 900 currently listed - and that's assuming I haven't missed any, which is unlikely. Grutness...wha? 07:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 11 missing locally. Grutness...wha? 07:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think 'thousands' is that much of an exaggeration. War memorials take many forms: most schools, churches, clubs etc. which were in existence during the first few decades of the last century would have plaques or honour boards for those who served; some public buildings are themselves war memorials; one famous war memorial is even a bottle of beer. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. I believe it passes WP:GEOFEAT, bullet 1 Fiddle Faddle 23:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't. It's not on the NZHPT register of historic places, which would be the criterion for bullet 1 of GEOFEAT. As to being a gazetteer, as it says in WP:NGEO's lede - "[...] geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question." Grutness...wha? 23:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seriously, marking this page for deletion on Remembrance Day?! This page is new and needs further work. It was absorbed into the Matakana page and then created as a stand alone page. There are several people throughout New Zealand who wish to contribute to its development. It is intended that this page will be part of a series of pages about significant monuments, war memorials, and their sculptors. It would be appreciated that, instead of deleting the page, that referencing and formatting continue to improve the page. Regarding the NZHPT, the classification of the monument is pending.--TheBlackandSilver (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The day has little relevance to whether an article is notable or not. And I have no objection to articles about significant monuments. This one, though, is utterly non-significant. Is there one single thing about it which makes it notable? Certainly nothing which I've been able to find brings it close to passing WP:GEOFEAT. I'm an inclusionist, but there are limits to what should be included. If the monument passes NZHPT classification, then it can always be re-created, but a large number of structures get nominated, with only a relatively small proportion of them being accepted. Look at it this way - at the moment, there are articles for New Zealand war memorials in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Matakana. That is, the country's three biggest centres, and one which would not fall in the country's largest 500. The Matakana monument has nothing which makes it any more significant than those in any of those other 500 centres, and indeed it is far less notable than many - possibly most - of them. A lot of these monuments are perfectly acceptably covered as sections of articles relating to their locations. As is this monument, adequately covered in the Matakana article. The subject simply doesn't meet WP's notability criteria enough to have a stand-alone article.

I realise that you have put some work into the article (indeed six of your 14 Wikipedia edits are related to it in some way - including re-creating the page after it had been declined at AfC... which should have been a hint about whether it should be here), but even so, sadly it seems unlikely to meet WP's notablity standards. It doesn't matter how much extra tidying and formatting is done to an article if it doesn't reach those standards. I would suggest that, in the interests of improving articles on New Zealand war memorials, work be done on some that are clearly notable - there are a substantial number of them which would be useful here (like the one for Dunedin Cenotaph, which I just created). Grutness...wha? 08:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to be a run of the mill community war memorial, and no more significant than the thousands of similar memorials in Australian and NZ towns and suburbs. The article's sourcing rests heavily on minor local news sources which I don't think are sufficient to establish notability. The article can be recreated if the memorial is listed as a historically significant place in the future and/or high quality sources become available. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge to Matakana, teh small section there is truly all that the sourcing can support. And to User:TheBlackandSilver, thank you for doing all of this work. It can take time to find you sea-legs, to figure out what makes a good article, find topics that we need your help to improve. Welcome; I do hope that you will stick around and help. There is lots of work to do. Perhaps you could offer to use the material you have brought to this page to improve the War Memorial seciton on the Matakana page. Cheers.17:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the improvements made since being nominated. Any merger or such discussion can be held on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 00:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boasting[edit]

Boasting (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)

Ivanvector suggestion is this is a three sentence dictionary definition. There are more words in hatnotes than in the article. Delete along with the 117 Neelix Redirects at RfD. [3] Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a good example of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Sundayclose (talk)
• Redirect to hubris - yes, I did suggest deletion, however I then realized that this has numerous incoming links (not counting the redirects) since "boasting" is possibly one name for a serious wrong in many mainstream religions. However, this tiny article is not helpful to readers. I've asked WikiProject Psychology to weigh in as perhaps there is a better target than what I've suggested. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the incoming wikilinks can be broken easily? Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's true, they can. But I have concerns about just deleting a page which currently gets 40-60 hits per day without leaving something (a redirect? a dab page?) in its place. Even if it's a soft redirect to wiktionary, but I personally don't like those. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly more than a dictionary definition - it does have six cites. Shortage of text is not in itself a reason for deletion, maybe there is room for expansion anyway. I don't agree with redirecting somewhere else. Hubris for example is a fairly broad conceptual attitude akin to narcissism, approximately being overconfident, but that could just mean for example making rash decisions. Boasting is a more narrow word relating to individual incidents of showing off.--Penbat (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've moved some of the stuff in the See also section into the main body of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are probably right. I'm here on the premise that boasting can't be expanded into a proper article beyond the dictionary definition because it would duplicate an existing topic, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong on that point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Millon's Handbook of Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology discuses Boasting as one component of self-presentation. We have an article on self-presentation entitled Impression management. Placed in this context, the term has meaning beyond a that of the dictionary. Merging Boasting with Impression management is another possible option. It could be added to: Impression_management#Motives_and_strategies - Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - many (72) of the incoming links are related to Template:Narcissism and will drop if the template in modified - Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant think of any suitable merges or redirects, impression management is a mile away from boasting which could well be spontaneous.--Penbat (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether we merge of not (I don't have strong feeling either way), the context of self-presentation and "Boasting" are encyclopedic. Self-presentation is largely subconscious and spontaneous. Million discusses how we try to optimize our self presentation by balancing between boasting and discrediting ourselves (via excessive self promotion or being caught and being proven wrong). He also speaks to our often limited ability to perceive how our efforts impact our acceptance and likeability by others. - Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we can all find 10 cites for any dictionary word. I like that redirect idea. Better to send people to an article where they can learn something rather then give a dictionary definition any english speaking 6 year old knows. Legacypac (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had already covered that point. It has six cites and has expansion potential.--Penbat (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit concerned that right now it reads as a bit of WP:COAT to attack Trump, who is the only living person cited to have been notably boastful. (oh, and BTW, he's notably litigious, too). Though of course that in itself is not a reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added that in an attempt to expand the article per above. Saw the list of fiction characters and the Donald popped into mind as the best example of a real person. Maybe others will add more to the article, cause beyond the dictionary definition you pretty much need to go to examples. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not redirect to hubris I for one wouldn't support a redirect to hubris, as suggested above. They're not quite the same, imo. One is a state of mind -- "extreme pride or self-confidence" -- with its roots in classical tragedy. The other, boasting, is a verbal behaviour (striking thru verbal as one can boast in print). One can suffer from hubris and not feel the need to boast. And I think one could outwardly boast as a means to cover for insecurity, and so not suffer from extreme self-confidence. Anyway, that particular redirect would not work, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merge if convenient, or improve, or just leave it alone. The "issues" named in the submission have been addressed, and it was a matter of a few minutes' work, it would actually have been easier for the submitter to fix the article than to propose it for deletion. --dab (𒁳) 20:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Article updated The consensus appears to be KEEP but IMPROVE. I added some basic structure to this article and to Impression_management article to help with this. I'm not sure the Donald Trump reference should be in this article, but I'll defer that decision to the active editors on this article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which also gives me a way to add a psychology category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Looks like the improvements since nomination have fixed any WP:DICDEF issues. It needs work, but considerably better now and certainly meets WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - thank you all for entertaining the discussion and helping to improve the article. As expanded, the article doesn't resolve my concern that this is not a distinct encyclopedic topic rather than simply a list of examples supporting a dictionary definition, but there doesn't seem to be anything better to do with it than what's been done, and the intricate technicalities distinguishing psychology concepts are well outside my area of expertise. I've struck my !vote above but I'm leaving this one as a neutral statement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Penbat's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have lots of articles about concepts of human feelings and behaviors, and the nominator has not enunciated a good reason for deleting this one. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 06:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crown House Business Centre[edit]

Crown House Business Centre (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 real sources for a bog-standard office building. Not an article, a commercial real estate listing. Calton | Talk 21:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article seems to be mostly talking about the Palestinian Return Centre, not the building which hosts it. Not clear why the building needs a page. JMWt (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete U.K: version of Google News archive finds only one article mentioning this building. Fails to meet WP:Notable. ViperFace (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's in Leeds, the article's about a building in London. Peter James (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability; coatrack article. Peter James (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3:16 Game[edit]

3:16 Game (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)

Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, individual games are generally better "in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page." This overlaps with 2011–12 NFL playoffs, 2011 Denver Broncos season, and 2011 Pittsburgh Steelers season. Years after this game, it's clear there has been little WP:LASTING impact or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the season. Even if this game were deemed notable, Wikipedia:Notability states: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." As an aside, the name "3:16 Game" itself shows little use of the term in sources on search engines. The 3:16 references are more relevant to Tim Tebow than the game, and its details from the game are already covered in his bio. 3:16 Game itself is puffed with overly-detailed (and unsourced) play-by-play.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (and Redirect perhaps to 2011–12 NFL playoffs?). I agree that this topic doesn't merit an article and that this article is overstuffed with unwarranted detail. As such, after ensuring that anything perceived as truly notable/relevant is covered in one (or more) of the articles noted above by Bagumba, I would support deletion. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: merge There seems little opportunity to merge here. Without CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of the coinkydink of 3-1-6's, it seems WP:UNDUE to merge much more of it. 3-1-6 is more relevant to Tebow than the game, and Tim Tebow#2011 already has his key stats and mention that it evoked John 3:16; not much more needs to be said unless people really believe the divine intervention theme is still underrepresented there. The "Background" section is predominantly a background of Tebow's career, not the game itself, which is again already covered by his extensive bio. Otherwise, the game recap itself is all unsourced, so little opportunity to merge without verification, in which case we may as well use actual RSs, not this article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. After taking a closer look at the articles, it seems to me that the 3:16 coincidences are given sufficient coverage in the other articles listed without further merging from this article. Thus, I've abandoned my suggestion to merge. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Tim Tebow – in reference to Bagumba's last comment, I think there is some useful content about the relationship between Tebow's prominent Christianity and the divine intervention theme which could be transferred to Tebow's article, and I think it would be reasonable to redirect the page to that section of Tebow's article. As Bagumba rightly points out, almost all of the rest of the article is the sort of contextual padding we so often see in articles about games which derive their notability from a single feature which can be described in a single paragraph. Aspirex (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale and the relevant event notability guidelines cited therein. Speaking as a practicing Christian, University of Florida graduate, and a fan of Tim Tebow and the Florida Gators, I find such pseudo-numerology to be embarrassing. It certainly has no place in a serious encyclopedia, even less so in the absence of significant and continuing coverage of the event. Everything about the "John 3:16" aspects of this game that needs to be covered is already included in the Tim Tebow article, and the 2011 season article treats all other aspects adequately. Tebow has great faith and personal character, and I really wish some folks would quit trying to make something weird out of an admirable young man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 15:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hellberg[edit]

Jonathan Hellberg (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 one citation is the only reference I could find in any of the search engines. Nothing else on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar, or Highbeam. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and nothing in the article shows them meeting WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found more refs: this mag interview (does not appear to be the same one as cited on the page) also this review and this article. Possibly more if I look a bit harder. JMWt (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hi JMWt - the first and third are interviews, and being primary sources are invalid for determining notability (in addition, the third is from a blog). The second is definitely interesting, but the site doesn't give it's editorial policy (can you find it anywhere, perhaps I missed it?), and it appears to be a post from ... somebody. Their "staff" page doesn't exist. So not sure that passes WP:RS.

It seems to me that the relevant policy is WP:GNG - and that there is a difference between sources to establish notability and the sources needed to prove any statements about the subject. It seems to me that the above references all meet the criteria listed in WP:GNG in that they're reliable (although I don't know how one would prove unreliability of a music magazine or website) and independent of the subject. I don't see anything suggesting that an edited interview on a journalistic site is, actually, a primary source. Even if it is, surely many different magazines and blogs carrying interviews would suggest that they think the artist is of interest - and is notable - even if it is later determined that the facts in the interview are unreliable. JMWt (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above said, I'm not sure whether the artist is really notable enough to be included. However, there are clearly more refs which should be considered than were offered initially. JMWt (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears unfinished and I don't see this article going anywhere soon. Jd02022092 (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I fail to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as he's not clearly notable and improvable yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadorma[edit]

Shadorma (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 references, has been ref tagged since 2013. No expansion in that time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the detail, but reliable sources exist for this poetic form. For example this book.JMWt (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how notable poetic forms are but it seems to have some merit. [4] [5]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep Though its mini-essay (now removed) was not sourced, the fact of the form's existence is well-known and easily sourced. Collect (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is keep, especially after citation work done by Sam Sailor. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Köler[edit]

Christoph Köler (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 with only one reference, and that from a page in a book written in German. I find nothing that establishes notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Article subject appears to fail WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The German Wikipedia article is better sourced. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep major figure in early modern German literature. English sources usually use his Latin name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I am not particularly convinced that the subject was a major figure in early modern German literature, he was certainly important enough to have a 250-page book written in the early 20th century on his life and work (this as a whole seems to be the one reference currently in the article, not just a page from it). The fact that the book was written in German does not damage its reliability. And while we generally require more than one reference to establish notability, there are definitely others - even excepting this one, which mainly mentions the subject to distinguish him from three other people with very similar names from much the same period. He is, for instance, mentioned or quoted repeatedly in this biography of Christian Hoffmann von Hoffmannswaldau and this book on German baroque rhetoric, and to lesser but still significant degrees here and here. PWilkinson (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having a biography published on the subject that is independent of the subject and not just a book of memorial is enough to make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's actually not much at first but a historical subject such as this will almost certainly have some archived information thus needed familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 08:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: It sounds as if you actually intended to !vote Keep. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily sourced, I have added a handful of ((Cite book))s and there's plenty more to pick from. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Hindori[edit]

George Hindori (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 stub does not contain enough information to determine whether this individual is WP:NOTABLE. Also, the author of this article may have a close connection to the subject of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep (if i understand the source correctly) if I read this right, [6] Hindori was a politician of the national parliament of Suriname and thus merits inclusion under WP:NPOL. he also merited a biographical entry here [7] (although in the snippet view, its hard to see anything particularly notable) but google translate says this source [https://books.google.com/books?id=fD5KAAAAYAAJ&q=George+Hindori+suriname&dq=George+Hindori+suriname&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE0Q6AEwB2oVChMI_YfnjpOJyQIVyz4mCh2aUQS7 says "What is hard is the fact that in the history of the independent genesis of Suriname, the breakthrough came when the one Hindustani, George Hindori, with the Creole block came along. And the history of the independent" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless someone can rewrite the article to make sense (as well as to establish his notability). There are several mentions of his "change of position", but no explanation of what it was before, when he changed it, and what it was afterwards. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Info on his change of position was removed with this dif. —teb728 t c 22:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• along with the incorrect claim that "widely considered the driving force behind the independence " when in fact the sources all state he was a latecomer and his intentions are defined all over the map. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was a member of the parliament of Suriname, and also held a cabinet level position as Secretary of Agriculture. Accordingly, he meets WP:NPOL. In 1975, he was right hand man to Jagernath Lachmon, head of the primarily Hindu political party opposing immediate independence from the Netherlands. Hindori's defection from the anti-independence movement and switch to support for immediate independence was a decisive event in Suriname's political history. I do not think that there should be any doubt that he was notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cullen328's cogent analysis. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 10:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there appears to be very little discussion of this person in published sources (at least those available online), so I initially doubted that he met the general notability guideline. Even if he doesn't, however, he does meet the additional criteria for politicians at WP:PEOPLE]. Thanks for Cullen328 for the analysis. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I must have misremembered how much coverage I found when searching about this person yesterday - there is in fact a fair amount of coverage in Dutch sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 06:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcella Humphrey[edit]

Marcella Humphrey (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 subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 19:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One obit and one birthday article suggesting oatmeal as a key to longevity do not notability make. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Fails to even assert, let alone establish notability. Has been tagged thusly since 2009. More than half a decade is quite enough time to resolve the notability issue. Please delete. David in DC (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject does not satisfy the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. What coverage there is, is local in nature and trivial in content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and per WP:NOPAGE, even if notable. ~ Rob^Talk 18:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal. EEng (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect There are few sources and she was not "old enough" to be among the oldest. Did not do anything to warrant notability for other reasons than her long life. Could be redirected with a mini-bio to a proper page. 930310 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - old, but no cookie. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon enquiry and further reflection, I am changing this to No Consensus. After discounting all the WP:SPA input, NC seems like a better summation of the arguments. It's all somewhat moot, since a NC close results in the article being kept anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan[edit]

Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan (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 subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources - all I could find were obituaries, which do not satisfy the requirement. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She was the world record holder. the previous AfD of similar record holder (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) result was keep, in the same way as this article should be keep. also, I gave an improvement in the problems of this article.[8] --Inception2010 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)— Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per WP:NOPAGE. Almost half of the article is about the mechanics and trivia of verification, plus the fascinating fact that she and her husband were interviewed together for the 1920 census. Wow! The rest is pedestrian details of everyone's life: born, married, worked, died. EEng (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to List of the oldest verified people. Nothing here justifies a stand-alone article. WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep World's oldest human is good enough. also record holders of world's oldest living person usually have an article.----153.151.83.197 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and redirect per EEng and David in DC's rationales above. I might also suggest that we add one or two-sentence descriptions of the listed persons to the "List of the oldest verified people", thus obviating the perceived need for many of these "oldest person" articles for non-notable subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and Obvious Keep Was the oldest living human in the world as well as the oldest person ever from Puerto Rico at the time of her death. 930310 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not obvious unless you can show us something that would go in the article to counter the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep World's oldest person who was covered extensively in world-wide media press. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan has been a notable person not only as the oldest ever verified woman from Puerto Rico, but also as the GWR-verified world's oldest person. The amount of press coverage is here thus not a surprise. Keep beyond reasonable doubt.White Eaglet (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Comment and Request - @White Eaglet, Fiskje88, 930310, and Inception2010: Please note that there is no such specific notability guideline for "oldest person," and any reliance on such a non-existent guideline or precedent is misplaced. All such "oldest persons" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as well as other suitability guidelines such as WP:NOPAGE, in order to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. You are respectfully requested to provide links to what each you believe are the three best examples of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per GNG, so other editors may evaluate whether such persons are notable. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The individual was documented as the "oldest documented person in the world" in an article with the reliable and verifiable sources needed to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think this is WP:A7. AfD isn't about verifiability of "a claim"; it's about SIGCOV, plus justification of a standalone article escaping NOPAGE. Can you speak to that? EEng (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has ample coverage and detail about the subject in an article that is the length, size and scope of most of our five million articles. Let me know if you have any further mind-reading regarding my intent or if you have any more acronyms and abbreviations to toss out. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind-reading wouldn't be necessary if you would express yourself intelligibly. First you talked about "support [for] the claim of notability", which isn't part of the criteria at AfD‍—‌actual notability, not a claim of notability, is what matters here, and that's the SIGCOV issue to which you still haven't spoken. Now you've shifted to talking about "length", "size" (which I guess you distinguish from "length") and "scope", which might be persuasive if the content of this article wasn't largely, as it is, fluff such as

according to documents compiled in March 2004... after the death of Mitoyo Kawate, although German American Charlotte Benkner, who was about 3½ months younger, had been given recognition in the meantime... They were interviewed together in the 1920 United States Census when she was 30... In 1948, her birth certificate was signed at Utuado, certifying that she was born at 7:00 AM on September 1, 1889. However, a baptismal certificate of April 1890 (found in 1992), revealed that she was actually born the day before, on August 31, 1889. The 1910 United States Census recorded her aged 20. Her marriage to Alfonso Soler on December 26, 1912, aged 23 is recorded by certificate on December 28, 1912... The Guinness World Records accepted her claim, documentation meeting their standards, and on March 29, 2004, she received a document from them, declaring her the world's oldest living woman. She joined José Miguel Agrelot, Wilfred Benítez and a handful of others as the only Puerto Ricans to enter that book.

-- none of which tells us anything about her. EEng (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC

EEng, feel free to cut out your patronizing crap. I've read the article and I've reviewed Wikipedia policy at length over the past decade. This article makes a rather clear claim of notability, is supported by reliable and verifiable sources and provides significant coverage of the article's subject. Cutting-and-pasting portions of the text does nothing to convince me otherwise, mainly because I've already read the article. Here and elsewhere, turning your levels of dripping arrogance down from 11 will be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temper, temper! You keep saying you've read the article, understand policies and guidelines, and so on, but you never actually express any opinion matched to those policies/guidelines. In cases like this I hold little hope of converting you to my point of view, rather my posts are directed at helping others not be confused by what you say. You're still arguing as if notability is the only test for a subject's having a standalone page, and that's just not right, as mentioned over and over: the NOPAGE issue needs to be addressed as well. Showing how much of the article is irrelevant fluff, by quoting it as above, helps others to see that. EEng (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Your reply here further solidifies the image of you that I have in my head as Q. Temper temper mon capitan! Canadian Paul 23:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, I'm still back at Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock, but I surmise this is a compliment. EEng (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't it make it any more valid. Simply ignoring the fact that the article makes a clear claim of notability, backs up that claim with reliable and verifiable sources in a comprehensive article does not make an argument for deletion. It merely constitutes an ignorance of reality. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reality? Dammit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not an epistomologist! EEng (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: For purposes of stand-alone articles on Wikipedia, "notability" has nothing to do with "a clear claim of ntoability notability," and everything to do with multiple examples of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. That's not nonsense -- that's what the guideline says. Furthermore, when notability is established, that creates a presumption, not a guaranty of a stand-alone article. Discussion participants may still decide that a given subject may be better covered as part of another article or list. This is all explicitly laid out in GNG. You may want to review it again. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"multiple examples of significant coverage of the subject" Let's give significant a numerical value, shall we! I'm recommending TEN reliable sources anything less and it's toast!!! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, I admire your persistence, and that of EEng, in simply ignoring, misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I've said. You can repeat the same crap over and over again, but you haven't convinced me or anyone else. This is an article that meets every aspect of the standard of Wikipedia notability (or what you call "ntoability"). Alansohn (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You admire our persistence in ignoring, misinterpreting and misrepresenting? You certainly have odd objects of admiration! EEng (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: I've participated in over 600 AfDs, and I have a pretty good grasp of the concepts of notability. I also recognize deflection and ad hominem arguments when I read them. As a lawyer, I recognize the rhetorical tactics -- and so would any parent of an 8-year-old. On several occasions in the recent AfDs related to this topic, you have protested your 10 years of Wikipedia experience in interpreting relevant Wikipedia "policy" (guidelines, actually). Okay, fair enough. How about you take up the challenge I issued above?

Please link to the three best examples of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG.

My mind can be changed by evidence, and unlike other participants in these discussions, my only interest is in seeing the general notability guidelines properly applied in each instance. Some of these "oldest persons" articles will survive because they have significant coverage; others will not survive because they don't have significant coverage. Can your mind be changed? Are you willing to present actual evidence of notability in the form of significant coverage? Can you? That's how this exercise is supposed to be played -- it's not a shouting match where participants trade insults. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you'll admit that in pointing out that you mistyped notability as ntoability, he well and truly vitiated all your fancy reasoning and logic. EEng (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, we don't work based on demands; We work on consensus. Your shouting-match demands that I must "link to the three best examples of significant coverage..." will be ignored because they have no more relevance than a demand that we mud wrestle, best two out of three pins, with the winner getting to choose if the article is retained. Consensus here is that your arguments (and those of EEng) simply don't fly, no matter how often you have repeated them or tried to raise the stakes. The article makes a strong claim of notability, the claim is covered by multiple reliable and verifiable sources in article that provides significant coverage of the subject. That's what counts. Accept it. Move on. Fight other battles, where you might have a better case. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I'm not "shouting," but when an AfD participant declines to provide evidence of significant coverage that usually means they can't. The burden is on "keep" voters to provide such evidence. Plenty of AfDs are wrongly decided when folks with a vested interested show up and vote in disproportionate numbers. Requesting that "keep" voters provide their best evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources is pretty much standard operating procedure in properly conducted AfDs -- but I assume you know that, based on your 10 years of experience, right? Simply repeating that such coverage exists is not evidence that it does, but I suspect you know that, too, right? I strongly urge you to re-read WP:GNG, because if you really know it and understand it, then you're ignoring it. BTW, grouping me with EEng is a mistake; I've never participated in these "oldest persons" discussions before two days ago, and my only interest in these discussions is seeing that GNG is properly enforced. I'm sorry if you cannot accept that in good faith. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Alansohn, don't group Dirtlawyer with me. That's a really low blow. EEng (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep . I thought we've been through this before. The oldest person ever is notable, period. Consensus can change but not that fast. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep linking to WP:OUTCOMES. Where in there is anything about oldest people? EEng (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: If ever this consensus you keep referring to existed at WP:OUTCOMES, or anywhere else, it has most definitely changed, or at least challenged, per the results of numerous recent AfDs. I don't mind legitimate disagreements about notability of course, but unless you clarify further, this just seems disingenuous and/or non-sensical to those nominating the article and does little to convince us to rethink our positions. Canadian Paul 23:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is such a no-brainer; there are sources, the subject is such an outstanding superlative (#1 in the world). I think we can even cite norules here, it's just obvious this is a useful extension of the encyclopedia. Jacona (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't explained why this useful extension can't be presented just as well in the appropriate list. EEng (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain, EEng, I think many subjects would be better served that way, but a "world superlative" is going to be considered worth of a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the question isn't whether the subject is "worthy" of a standalone article, just whether that's the best way to present the subject. As NOPAGE says, "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." EEng (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with the user above. Coverage in sources, oldest person in the world... meets WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being the oldest whatever is something that just happens by chance. And NOPAGE applies abundantly, there is absolutely nothing of encyclopedic value in this article. Perhaps there's a wikia for trivia that might be interested in this stuff... --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. This source, for example, addresses the subject directly and in detail. Just Chilling (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 06:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Shevon[edit]

Sarah Shevon (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 PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No nontrivial biographical content. Tendentiously deprodded without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 08:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CORP joe decker^talk 06:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttlefish[edit]

Kuttlefish (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)

Nonnotable Web business, only marginal coverage. See WP:CORP and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 15+ indepedent and international sources that support this entry, however the majority are considered "blogs" and therefore have not been included. The company also has a Facebook following of 140k, which is notable for a web business and indicates that it is "attracting notice".Erothkopf (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now - Nothing to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Additional notable source added. Erothkopf (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the additional source added [9] is a very short PR blurb. The model of an unreliable source. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Added an additional notable, international source (notable for it's following, e.g. 62,000 Facebook followers).Erothkopf (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Never close on one !vote but as noted below High/Secondary schools are always kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I would've closed this much sooner had I been aware. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba-Japan International School[edit]

Aoba-Japan International School (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:ORG. Edited/maintained by several single-purpose accounts with Japanese IP addresses, possible spam WP:CONFLICT. Unsourced (created in 2010). Wiki-psyc (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is a degree awarding high school institution and is independently accredited, as described in the Accreditation section of the article. If there is a concern with spam or conflict editing, the article can be reduced and rebuilt with whatever sources are available. But it is not so bad that it needs to be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ninebot one[edit]

Ninebot one (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)

Unsourced Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the article and I'm actually OK for its deletion. I created the article after reading about the device somewhere I forgot, but with hindsight this device does not seem to notable enough for Wikipedia. Again, Y with deletion.--Grondilu (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of respect for you after saying that! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note plausible G12 claim, I haven't investigated it throughly enough to verify that the text isn't PD, but that should be carefully considered in the unlikely case that restoration is requested. joe decker^talk 06:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rmit flexible and e-learning[edit]

Rmit flexible and e-learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think this page has something to do with developmental psychology, but I do not understand exactly what. KDS4444^Talk 13:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE This is probably vandalism. This appears to be a course description / course outline from RMIT University, an Australian public university of technology and design based in Melbourne, Victoria. This is the course: rmit.edu.au/courses/005446 Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio G12. No indication of importance. Cowlibob (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Lee[edit]

Austin 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)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article passes WP:GNG as they have been written about in newspapers and magazines which are cited in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward8686 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  13:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There's no real reason or sources for the article. I'm usually a keepatarian but I don't see anything here to warrant that. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the nom and Yossiea. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. WP:CSD#G3 (hoax) by User:Tokyogirl79. (non-admin closure) ansh666 20:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asiope's Next Top Model (cycle 1)[edit]

Asiope's Next Top Model (cycle 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think this is for a television model competition, but am not 100% certain of even that. Article doesn't provide much context for the reader to understand what it's about, and has no citations to help the reader figure out. I can't find references for a subject I can't grasp from the article's contents. Suggesting deletion unless someone has a better idea of what to do with this. KDS4444^Talk 13:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television -related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would suggest merge to Asiope's Next Top Model but that article is completely unreferenced, and probably ought to be included in this AFD too. if it is, I would say delete on that too as they are both poor, unreferenced, non-contextualised articles created by an editor who has made many problematic edits in the past and whose user name might possibly imply conflict of interest/shared usage. (I see someone else is already on that ball.) Mabalu (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 00:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart M. Brooks[edit]

Stuart M. Brooks (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)

Created by SPA who appears to be related (he changed his username: [10]). Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Article does claim he discovered a somewhat obscure syndrome known as RADS, but it is cited to his own website. Even if this is true, I've found no coverage of him with which to create an article, and I'm not sure that would qualify him as notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep. The paper to which the article sources the subject's discovery of Reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (and of which he is the lead author) shows up with nearly 700 citations on the standard GScholar search - overall, GScholar shows the subject's h-index as a bit over 30. In many academic fields, the h-index would be quite enough to assume notability under WP:ACADEMIC#1. In fields like medicine, with heavily multiply-authored articles, it probably isn't quite enough by itself, but I am regard that heavily-cited article (and, to a lesser extent, a number of others with three-figure citations) as enough for notability. Pinging User:David Eppstein, as having rather more expertise with this kind of evidence than I have. PWilkinson (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not much of an expert on medical notability, but with 8 papers having over 100 citations each in Google scholar including nearly 700 for the RADS paper I think this is a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Yossiea ^(talk) 19:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avisekh Rath[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see no better improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - with a single acting credit, clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. Searches did not show them to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philosothon[edit]

Philosothon (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 source appears to be the only substantial, independent coverage of this competition in reliable sources. As such the 'multiple' sources requirement of WP:GNG is not met. SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  13:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  13:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following independent and substantial sources have been added today (Also some dead references have been removed);

Dr Ellerton, Peter "University Of Queenland Philosothon" Source- University of Queensland. Retrieved 11 November 2015. http://www.ctp.uq.edu.au/content/qld-state-philosothon

Mc Donald, Gaye. "Bournemouth Echo Today".http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11155830.display/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Higgert, David "Independent Education Today"-http://ie-today.co.uk/Article/young_philosophers_have_winning_thoughts

Dr D'Olympio, Laura. "The Conversation" http://theconversation.com/philosophy-in-schools-promoting-critical-creative-and-caring-thinking-44578

Flood, Gary & (2014). "A Marathon for the Mind". Retrieved 10 November 2014. https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=tpm&id=tpm_2014_0067_0010_0015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As well as these reliable independent sources there are multiple ABC Radio National Programs about this competition. There are also many other substantial references on independent school websites and educational networks such as the Philosophy Foundation and SAPARE in the UK, FAPSA, APIS and VAPS in Australasia. These are independent networks of teachers in the UK Sydney59 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC) and each Australian state. Some but not all are included in the reference section on the Philosothon article. More can be added if necessary.[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Silly nomination. Notability is not an issue and there is no evidence of promotional material provided by Duffbeerforme ....and if this were the case the article could be improved. Why would you delete. Sydney59 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability, reads like and advertisement, and almost looks to be pushing an agenda. As Duffbeerforme (talk · contribs) observed, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 06:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Control Layer[edit]

Business Control Layer (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)

Per WP:NEO and likely WP:SPAM. No credible claim to notability, only source is a press release. My own searches turn up nothing better. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software term article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Per nom, this article promotes a neologism which lacks significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Couldn't find any independent coverage of what appears to be a neologism. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 Janpath[edit]

10 Janpath (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 a Notable Place. Not any official residence of Government Official . Residence of Leader of Political Party is a Notable Place KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 15:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG based on a quick google search. Why would the residence of a political party leader be inherently non-notable?--Prisencolin (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable location in Indian national politics. Article could be expanded with detail on past history of the building. See several book hits, such as https://books.google.com/books?id=ItQF4g08KbwC&pg=PA272 and https://books.google.com/books?id=R6LrBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT84 . https://books.google.com/books?id=VeXGhORkNaQC provides more on the history of the compound, it's usage by Sanjay Gandhi. https://books.google.com/books?id=zFyMKROi46kC&pg=PA43 say it used to function as Lal Bahadur Shastri's office in the 1960s. "Compare: 10 Janpath Road: n. residence of Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Italian wife of former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi. 10 Janpath was the official residence of Rajiv Gandhi when he was the PM. The house was given to his widow and" (https://books.google.com/books?id=wDQyBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA16), "Thousands of Congress(I) workers waving black flags staged demonstrations outside the AIIMS, at Rajiv Gandhi's official residence at 10, Janpath and at Teen Murti House to protest against the assassination." (https://books.google.com/books?id=SAZVQqntxY0C&pg=PA70) "The most poignant moment came when the body reached 10 Janpath: Mrs Lalita Shastri collapsed as she touched her husband's body." (https://books.google.com/books?id=nTRuAAAAMAAJ p. 8) "He preferred to shift to 10 Janpath instead of to Teenmurti House, again due to the same complex, because he drew a parallel between his 10 Janpath house and the famous 10 Downing Street residence of the Prime Ministers of our former" (https://books.google.com/books?id=kX8dAAAAMAAJ p. 159) "The number 10, Janpath also has a strange history. The house has claimed many casualties. After he ceased to be the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi moved into the house and was assassinated within 18 months. His widow and Congress president Sonia Gandhi continues to live there. It is said that since the house has already claimed a victim, its negative influence stands countered.

Ten Janpath was the office of the Indian Youth Congress during the emergency when Ambika Soni was its president and Sanjay Gandhi, a National Council member. The IYC was virtually wound up within 18 months from there and had to be resuscitated back subsequently after its ejection in 1977. The story is that even the Press Council of India had its office for 18 months and it had to move out. K.K.Tewari, a senior Congress leader who stayed there and moved out after Rajiv was allotted the house is in political wilderness.

Lal Bahadur Shastri as the Prime Minister also lived in the complex whose part the present 10, Janpath was. He died within 18 months of being in office." (http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/capital-closeup/2010/06/30/the-most-charmed-house-and-other-tales/) --Soman (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed with nomination to the extent that residence must not be regarded as notable for article, however, we usually create articles about residences if they are already enough covered by media. Capitals00 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This was closed as borderline no consensus as many of the keep !votes simply pointed to a policy which merely assumes notability but does not directly infer it upon the subject. WP:SIGCOV is required and while this was not a clearcut case of GNG, there did appear to be enough material in the improved version for a claim against it. Mkdw^talk 23:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nazario Fiakaifonu[edit]

Nazario Fiakaifonu (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: as insufficiently accomplished and thus non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 14:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SwisterTwister -- any opinions?? It's lonely here! Quis separabit? 05:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely delete for now (or redirect to one of the Olympic articles which currently mention him?) as News and browser found some links but nothing convincingly better and it seems there's not much else especially recent. Thanks for the ping BTW, haha. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Olympic athletes are presumed notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Yes, Olympic athletes are presumptively notable, but that doesn't give them a free pass around WP:NOPAGE. I suggest that the redirect target be Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Qualification. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect I believe being an Olympic competitor is enough to prevent outright deletion. Normally I would vote automatically to keep the article, but there is less in the article than can be found at Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's +100 kg, which I believe may be the best target of a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved enough to make me cross out my redirect option. I think keeping the article is the best choice since it provides the easier option of adding sources (there must be more out there). I do think NewYorkActuary makes a good point about WP:NOPAGE. I also found it interesting that he was ranked 138th in 2012, but got into the Olympics because Oceania was allocated two spots in his division. Papaursa (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An Olympic judo competitor from tiny Vanuatu? Sounds interesting, likely to have coverage. Indeed it does: quick search in Google news yields 5 hits, including:

• asserted by The Irish Independent to have a genuine medal hope (though with no support for that assertion and no additional detail about him)
• quoted extensively (several sentences), partly as one of [the Vanautu] athletes who [may have] travelled farthest to get to London (1,731 miles? [1,731 miles further than 8,362 mile (13,457 kilometer) trip of a Marshall Islander to London, if the Vanauatu trip went to the Marshall Islands first] ), and about Vanautu, and about his medal chances (which he discounted) within this Bloomberg news article (amended by [bracketed info] --doncram 18:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• quoted about about training in Vanautu (i wonder what equipment matters in judo training?)

Also Youtube search has films with him, including

• "Vanautu Pride" interview in London (from ~0:50 to end at 2:32) , he speaks of his hopes for judo & other sports training for youth in Vanautu, and their facilities (around 1:40), and wanting to give back to his country].
• performing 50 speed presses (oh, so maybe the equipment is about weight-lifting and the like)

Many non-controversial details provided in the above can be used in article. It is convenient that he is English-speaking.

Also, contrary to a claim above, there is no more information about him at Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's +100 kg, and any personal details at all would not be appropriate for that article.

Also, among several Wikipedia articles linking to him, no one is an obvious redirect target. Better not to repeat personal details in each of them; keep as one article linked from Vanuatu at the 2012 Summer Olympics, Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Qualification, 2011 World Judo Championships – Men's +100 kg, Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's +100 kg, 2012 Summer Olympics closing ceremony flag bearers, and one or two more.

From those link's sources, additional details can be mentioned: His serving as flag-bearer, and 2011 World performance

He is very friendly, too.  :)

--doncram 17:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Olympic athletes are always considered notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. User:doncram, thank you for finding and providing the extra citations. But the written citations give us nothing encyclopedic. It is the rare Olympic athlete who hasn't travelled a great distance to the competition, and all of them engage in training and discuss their prospects with the press. None of this has encyclopedic value. Perhaps others will disagree, but I don't think one can evade WP:NOPAGE simply by padding an article with these unencyclopedic details. However, I do agree that the redirect target proposed by Papaursa isn't much better than the one proposed by Schmidt. The better redirect target is one of the ones mentioned by you -- Vanuatu at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Judo. As for not being able to place personal details in the redirect target, why do we need to provide personal details? Consider the article on the guy who defeated Fiakaifonu, Marius Paškevičius. This article has virtually no personal details. And yet no one here would consider deleting it, because it identifies several top-level medals that he has won over the years. And that's what's missing here. Fiakaifonu's entry at InsideJudo.com shows that he only competed in three matches in his career, losing all three of them. His appearance at the 2012 Olympics was truly the only thing that rises to our notion of notability, and it isn't enough to get around WP:NOPAGE. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

• I see your wp:NOPAGE point, and agree several facts I mention are not very "encyclopedic", although facts like them routinely appear in BIOs about models and actors. But height, weight, birthdate and mention that his sister is also competing (added by another editor) are examples of acceptable, "encyclopedic" personal details that have now been added, and they are appropriate only for an individual article.
• The Vanuatu at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Judo article cannot receive any personal details, as it does not now and is consistent with (presumably all) others like Canada at the 2012 Summer Olympics. So again, because he is appropriately mentioned in several Wikipedia articles, there is no place for personal details except at an individual page.
• wp:NOLYMPICS says there can be an article, though it is not required; wp:NOPAGE suggests considering coverage in a list-article or elsewhere, which we have done. All modern Olympians are mentioned in two or more Wikipedia articles (their sport & their nation). IMO, the general rule for bios of Olympic athletes should be something like: An editor may create a separate article if there exists any Wikipedia-covered other-competition information about the athlete OR if there are any "encyclopedic" personal details which can be mentioned, that an editor wants to add. If there is not any info beyond the bare facts of Olympic participation, I would prefer their mentions be left as redlinks or be de-linked. The pre-AFD article included birth-date and birth-location, so barely met this standard.
• Another kind of personal detail is news of their participation in judo competitions subsequent to 2012 Olympic games. I just mentioned two 2015 competitions in the Marius Paškevičius article, including that he won a round in Abu Dhabi by ippon (which I hope and believe I handled correctly, using Dutch and French sources). And in Fiakaifonu's article, I added mention of his competing in 2014. It is relevant and useful in an article about these athletes to indicate that they are still competing at later dates. (For one thing, IMO, this may indirectly suggest they are hanging in to compete in the 2016 Olympics, for readers interested in speculating.) --doncram 18:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:doncram Thanks for the response. Although we are advocating different positions, we're not all that far apart -- neither one of us is proposing an outright deletion. I acknowledge that Olympic participation earns an athlete an entry on Wikipedia. Our debate is only over whether that entry should be a stand-alone article or a redirect. It might be helpful to consider the opinions of the good folks over at the Martial Arts project. Their project page has a section on the notability of martial artists, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Martial_artists, the first paragraph of which echoes the provisions of WP:NOPAGE -- it explicitly recognizes that some martial artists might be notable, but still not merit a stand-alone article. The question then becomes whether statistics such as date of birth and weight are, in themselves, sufficient to meet their standards for stand-alone articles. I don't think they do, but perhaps you feel differently.

As for your proposed standards, they are far too broad. What Olympic athlete doesn't have personal details such as date of birth and weight? And with only rare exception, all of them have competed at some other point in their careers. Your standards would grant stand-alone articles to every Olympic athlete and would effectively render moot WP:NOPAGE, as well as the specific standards expressed by the Martial Arts project.

A few comments about sources. First, I garbled the name of the judo web site (and I regret any inconvenience that error might have caused). Fiakaifonu's data can be found at http://judoinside.com/judoka/79877/Nazario_Fiakaifonu/judo-matches. Second, I assume that you have the subject article on your watchlist, and are already aware that I deleted the statement that Nazario's sister competed at the Glasgow games. The source specifically says that she didn't participate. But of far more substance is that same source's statement that Nazario intended to participate in those games. Perhaps so, but the JudoInside site doesn't corroborate this. You can see a list of more than 200 head-to-head matches (at those games) at JudoInside.com (once at the site, search for "Commonwealth Games Glasgow"). Fiakaifonu doesn't appear on that list. Perhaps he failed to qualify; perhaps he didn't compete for some other reason. But either way, he didn't compete. Later today, I'll amble back to the subject article and place a 'dubious' tag on that statement (with a fuller discussion on its talk page). But for now, I simply note that we still don't have anything substantive about the subject other than his participation in the 2012 Olympics. A redirect is still the appropriate treatment of this article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary, I also appreciate the discussion and feel that we are not very far apart, though we land on opposite sides of a line. We're willing to discuss this minor article at length because this is somehow an important test case, I sense.

• You advocate a redirect, but a redirect to what? To a mere mention of his name in one of the other Wikipedia articles? That is no help to readers. To a passage about him in any of the other Wikipedia articles? No passage would be allowed. Honestly I think the only solution is a short article. This reminds me of a past AFD about an architect for which not very much was known, but who(whom?) had designed multiple historic notable buildings, which had or could have articles that naturally should mention him. The only reasonable resolution was to keep the architect article to hold the minimal bio-type details about him, as well as to provide navigation amongst the articles where he was mentioned.
• Your finding "Notability#Martial_artists" is very relevant, but a) it is one wikiproject's guideline that does not govern (per wp:LocalConsensus?) and b) it does not envision or address the situation of a person being linked from multiple Wikipedia articles. If, as that assumes implicitly, the situation is that a person is mentioned in just one article (perhaps a list-article) and can be covered there. You and I will agree it is then not necessary (and probably not desirable) to split out the info to a separate article, when the info is minimal. That's not the situation here.
• One very important category of personal details we and the Wikiproject have not mentioned is photos and videos and links thereto. Many Wikipedia editors, including me, believe that having articles on persons and places encourages the public to take pictures and contribute them, and/or to provide useful external links. I find no photos of him at Commons, but I have added external links to Fiakaifonu's Youtube videos. These links to images/films are actually quite substantial in providing the reader with significant information about the subject.
• I also added bits about his preliminary matches, which all Olympic athletes also have, like height and weight. What's different for his article vs. the Olympians not having articles includes: such info is available about him in reliable sources, and an editor has chosen to create the article.
• Thank you for corrected link to his JudoInside information. Yes, his 0-3 record in matches covered by JudoInside is not great, but he did get to those multiple competitions and must not have been laughed off the mat. I wonder if he could be notable for going to the Olympics while never having won a match, anywhere, perhaps? That would be very unusual and perhaps aggravating to jealous others.
• JudoInside's tabulation of Glasgow 2014 results which I found, by the way, does not name him. But it only names the top eight competitors in every division, and I don't believe there were 8 and only 8 competitors in each one. For the World Cup in Apia, Samoa in November 2012, his name also does not appear, while I really believe he was there: regarding which there is coverage of his travel thereto (I think, but I am not positive that the World Cup event in Samoa that he was going to is the same one, as there is no date in the article and I don't trust an "last edited in 20XX" stray note).
• Note the JudoInside page gives him an 8 out of 10 for "Popularity"...there must be a story to be told, right? :)

Seriously I think having a very brief article is the proper resolution. --doncram 02:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have both stated our positions rather clearly. I also think that neither one of us wants to set an Olympic record for the longest AfD discussion, so I'll address your points without too much repetition of my previous postings. Before I do that, I note that the problem you ran into at the JudoInside site was in not clicking on the "Head to Head" tabs. Those tabs contain the complete listings of matches, which is far more extensive than the brief list of names under the "Results" tab. I've already corrected the subject article for this.

You argue quite eloquently for a guideline that would (in effect) permit stand-alone articles for just about every Olympic competitor. But the good folks at the Olympics project have never suggested such a result. Indeed, I get the impression that they pretty much defer to the Sports project when it comes to the notability of individuals. And the folks at the Martial Arts project have an explicit guideline against such a result. That guideline says that notable martial artists don't always get a stand-alone article, and it makes no exceptions for Olympic competitors. Perhaps you could get them to change that guideline. And if you succeeded in doing that, I would not feel any sense of moral outrage. Indeed, I would applaud the effort that it took you to achieve that result. But as things stand right now, the folks at the Martial Arts project are telling us (in effect) that merely appearing in the Olympics does not guarantee a place to host a photograph of the athlete, nor a place to host personal details about the athlete, nor a place to host video links. And here at this AfD debate, we should be basing our positions on the guidelines that currently exist. The nominator started this discussion by describing the subject as "insufficiently accomplished". Appearing in only three world-class matches, and being eliminated in the first round of all three of them? I think the nominator got it right.

Despite our different positions, I do acknowledge that the article now looks better than it did a week ago. As for whether that's enough to get past WP:NOPAGE, I guess we'll find out soon enough. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 06:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PJ DeLuca[edit]

PJ DeLuca (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 assistant coach. No 3rd party reliable sources showing notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Deprodded with no reason given. Tassedethe (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD needs input from knowledgeable hockey editors. He was also a player as reflected in this link. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete: But not a professional player, not at any level, and had no particular distinction as an amateur -- this certainly fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. Honestly, I'd support an A7 speedy deletion for failure to assert notability of any kind. (I'd also support a sound trout-slapping for the deprodder, an anon IP whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to have been to deprod articles with no reasons proffered, on October 28th.) Ravenswing 19:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My searches did not turn up the type of significant we need to satisfy WP:GNG. With Ravenswing now weighing in that the playing career doesn't meet a special notability threshold under WP:NHOCKEY, it appears this should be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Doesn't he pass WP:NHOCKEY as a coach in the NHL. [11] [12] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: He has never been a head coach. NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to the flurry of assistants and technical positions teams fill. In any event, over at the Hockey WikiProject, we feel fairly strongly that while our guideline is useful as a subordinate notability guide, any hockey figure must still be able to meet the GNG's requirements. Ravenswing 10:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus, DeLuca's "coaching" position is as a video coordinator.Was NHOCKEY's presumption of notability intended to reach such positions? Not likely. Cbl62 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, pretty much just head coach. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 06:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colegiul Pacientilor[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing better and it's not surprising considering this started this year. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no article in Romanian. Unlikely to be extensive coverage for brand new organisation. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Dante[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JohnatDegRecords (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Lucien Dante has performed as a featured musician in 2014 at a very notable event called the Teddy Awards, Germany's biggest LGBT film festival and awards show.^[1][reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Salaam Shalom[edit]

Radio Salaam Shalom (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 radio station, fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No refs or assertion of notability in the article. A community station is all. Szzuk (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a previous project of a charitable organisation which has now moved onto other things (if the link in the article is for the correct org).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diverse FM[edit]

Diverse FM (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 radio station, fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN community station. Can't imagine there are many listeners. Szzuk (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find anything on WP:GNG and also community radio stations are easy for anyone to create. Tyler Mongrove (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic football rankings[edit]

Gaelic football 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)

Unofficial, WP:OR and not notable Gnevin (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Gnevin (talk)[reply]

Keep. As the author of the article, I have to disagree. The fact that the Gaelic football rankings is currently an unofficial (as in not recognised by a sporting body) ranking method is not included as a reason for deletion in WP:AfD. Also, the unofficial status of the ranking method is clearly indicated in the article. I do not believe that the ranking method constitutes original research as it is solely the repreresentation of exisiting information (results of Gaelic football games) in a different manner (results leading to exchange of rating points). All further information shown in the wiki is derived from this representation of information. The rankings have been in place less than one year and appear to be attracting between 15 and 20 views per day. While the importance of the ranking system (outside discussions on GAA matters) is not currently taken into consideration by the GAA governing bodies, one could envisage a time where rankings would be used to determine league seedings or championship seedings (should the championship structure ever change!). I request that the article not be deleted as it provides an interesting insight into the current and historical placings of Gaelic football county teams which is of interest to avid GAA supporters. Tinahinse (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unofficial rankings are by their nature unencyclopedic and seem to represent a level.of WP:OR. There is also a fair amount of WP:POV in the article with headings such as "Greatest Shocks." The lack of coverage of these unofficial standings outside of primary sources means the article fails WP:N. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Jkudlick. Snappy (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheshadre Priyasad[edit]

Sheshadre Priyasad (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 article fails WP:NACTOR, in that she has only appeared in one film (whose notability has been questioned). Criteria #1 states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Previous PROD notices have been removed without addressing the subject's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Reed[edit]

The Reed (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 undergraduate journal, PRODded for lack of evidence of notability, dePRODded by COI editor who "created this page to let folks know this journal exists". PamD 09:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  10:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  10:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails GNG. sst✈^discuss 15:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not independently notable and improvable yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damascus countryside offensive (October 2015)[edit]

Damascus countryside offensive (October 2015) (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, recommend redirecting to Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015) reverted already. Also a near close of Daraa offensive (October 2015) Mdann52 (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  10:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  10:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added a new source from FARS Scores of Militants Killed in Syrian Army Offensive in Damascus Countryside, FARS, 14-10-15. There are more. Guru Noel (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FARS not accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nom no longer valid at time of vote. You will need another argument. Plus Damascus is not in Northwestern Syria for anyone unfamiliar with Geography considering that merge option. Guru Noel (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The control of the countryside around Damascus is highly relevant to the conflict and this offensive could be important enough to pass WP:GNG according to the available sources. Furthermore, Damascus is not in Northwestern Syria or close to Danaa. MaeseLeon (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - what evidence is there that reliable sources call this event the "Damascus countryside offensive"? I couldn't find much through Google. There is a fundamental problem with creating articles about recent events as there can be no telling how the event will be covered by reliable sources in the future (or if indeed it will even be considered notable) - see WP:NOTNEWS. What ever aspects of this article are considered relevant should be merged into Syrian Civil War. Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if not delete totally than at least merge some of the more relevant info (if there is any) to the main article on the war. EkoGraf (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge elsewhere. This is yet another example of NOTNEWS in the Syrian conflict. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Minniecon[edit]

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

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

fails WP:BIO. if his claim to fame is being a weekend weather presenter that's not really much. and could find nothing in gnews on him. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG (although a couple of the links are dead). Probably also passes WP:JOURNALIST (regarded as an important figure) or WP:ENTERTAINER (has large fan base - see this for a chuckle). Most of his current google hits are for performing as the MC for various functions, often quite important ones - I'd say this supports being regarded as an important figure and having a large fan base. He's also (if you put much stock in such things) the eightieth-most popular weatherman in the world, according to Ranker.com :) --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where is the coverage, this one can't be indepth coverage for establishing WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ENT or WP:BIO, and ranker really a reliable source? LibStar (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayback Machine has snapshots of the dead links (here and here - the first is a breif bio from 9 News, the second just lists him as being the weekend weather presenter, though it does note his unique style of presenting. The Advertiser isn't on the NLA digital archive after 1954 yet, so I can't easily check the 1998 article. However being a weekend weather presenter for 13 years means he is a pretty well known part of the local (South Australian) television scene - as evidenced by more recent sources noting his (minor) celebrity status and being a popular MC. Strangely, the Victor Harbor Times is digitised, and has him back in 1999 doing a "celebrity sing-off" at the Victor Harbor Folk Festival. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this makes him notable, but rather using it as evidence that his role as a television personality has made him notable as a South Australian identity.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congenital contractural arachnodactyly in cattle[edit]

Congenital contractural arachnodactyly in cattle (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 worthy of an article separate from congenital contractural arachnodactyly, nor is it worth merging the articles, since content appears to be borderline copyvio (see article talk). Brycehughes (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  08:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 06:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RSForm!Pro[edit]

RSForm!Pro (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)

Basically an advertisement --  Kethrus |talk to me  13:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  13:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see nothing better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, with only low-quality references. The article's many refs are promotional coverage, blogs, and how-to articles which are typically not sufficient to establish notability.. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 06:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Omotosho[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. No evidence of notability. Having contested for Kwara State governor is not an evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article creator's exhaustive promotion of the subject, without having mentioned anything that would satisfy WP:BIO, seems like a strong indication that there isn't anything. --Closeapple (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Even if the subject were notable, the article is so promotional that it is barely salvageable. Graham (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  14:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chia-Hui Lu[edit]

Chia-Hui Lu (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)

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

I don't read Chinese, which may be why I can't see the notability of this person. As the article stands, she appears not to meet WP:ARTIST or the GNG. My searches of books and news have found several other people with the same name, but no in-depth coverage of this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  12:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  12:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as I simply see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]