The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn, and there are no other delete votes. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Districts Council (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 article does not seem to have any reliable secondary sources to support its notability. Its only sources, before I removed them, were to a phishing site. A few reliable sources mention this organization in passing, but this is mainly set up like an advertisement for the organization. epic genius (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blatantly non-neutral, no significant coverage found by a quick GBooks search. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This sounds as if it may be a significant campaigning organisation. No Gbooks source is likely to be available, but what about newspapers? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems like a significant organization by mentions alone, even if the sourcing isn't there yet. —Swpb^talk 20:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - News turned up dozens of brief mentions, of the type which would indicate it passes WP:BASIC, from the Village Voice to Politico, to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle had a nice little article about a lawsuit the group filed to save E.A. Poe's house from destruction. There's a very nice mention, found on Books, at HERE, in which the organization is interwoven into several pages (as their acronym HDC). Again, quite a few significant mentions of the organization showing its importance to the historical preservation of NYC, as exhibited by this type of reference, albeit brief, shows the significance of the org. They are apparently covered in detail in a book about the Poe house controversy: NYU's Legal Agreement: The Inside Story. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find plenty of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources both via Google Books, Highbeam, and Newspaper Archive, subject easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH. A selection of book sources.^[1]

^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [12] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [11] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]}

Pinging nom and delete voter for their reconsideration (Epicgenius—Qwertyus). Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to withdraw my nomination now. The subject is apparently marginally notable. Is there a way to do that? (However, I'm still seeing some advertorial-type writing on the page, which I am trying to clean up.) epic genius (talk) 01:30, 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 Keep. WP:SNOW, WP:NPA Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

White Cross Army (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)

Unexplained removal of PROD tag. Does not meet WP:NORG - "A company, corporation, organisation, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organisation". Delete AusLondonder (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per [1], [2] etc. and per [3] NYT coverage, [4] more NYT coverage, and even more NYT coverage if one looks. Not to mention over fifty book sources. This is a bit past "only one source" as far as I can tell, and I trust the nomination was not pointed at any editor in particular. Collect (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is to my mind a clearly notable organisation have added another ref.... and more can be found. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

A small number of mentions does not make for notability. Where is the significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when The New York Times covers an organization multiple times, it is considered significant coverage by a major reliable source. If you wish to demur that the NYT meets WP:RS I suggest you ask at WP:RS/N. Collect (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For those wondering how, instantaneously, editors are out defending this organisation (and not the many others at AFD) - Eric Corbett was the creator. The Corbett Defence League is out in force again. AusLondonder (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effing Bosh and Twaddle I have no connection whatsoever with Mr. Corbett, and you aspersions do not belong on any talk page whatsoever on Wikipedia. I suggest you strike your aspersions forthwith. Collect (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Collect - then how did you get here so quickly and why did you state "I trust the nomination was not pointed at any editor in particular". Also, I was referring especially to the editor who removed the PROD without comment within seconds AusLondonder (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um - perhaps you did not know my Watchlist is now about 4,500 pages in size? After removing several thousand entries. That is how I got here "so quickly." I had noted posts at UT:JW and other places, especially where a large number of AfDs were recently made for women who actually meet GNG. I have no idea who dePRODded the page, nor does it make a whit of difference to this discussion. The organization clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines as being notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Definitely a Keeper: A simple GBooks search yields multiple RS page after page. And please let's not politicise this AfD, any further than it already is, by attaching blame to the keep votes based on alleged connections to Eric. The RS speak for themselves. No need for ad-Eric arguments. Dr. K. 23:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are almost 400 articles in the British Newspaper Archive about this organisation, many of which appear to be reports of meetings around the UK. Unfortunately my subscription has just run out so I can't read them. If you post a proposed deletion notice on a talk page that has attracted over 9,000 hits in the last month it's not surprising if it attracts some interest. Perhaps the proposer should read the sentence in the template they posted above about assuming good faith. Richerman (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Talking about the template, I'm still waiting for the SPAs and the external website referrals. Not to mention the brand-new accounts who need guidance how to sign their posts. Dr. K. 01:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any recent AFD I have participated in I have not seen such interest. Let's not pretend this is not related to Eric Corbett. User:Dr.K. the template is not just about external referrals and sock puppets and it is plainly dishonest to suggest it is. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what your template says. You mean you were not honest when you added it to this AfD? Sorry to hear that. I took you at your word. Dr. K. 01:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so you literally cannot read? Or do you just enjoy making people explain things to you? Perhaps explains why you support keeping this article. However, the template says "If you came here because someone asked you to...please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. They are the points I emphasise. AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to become so belligerent. These things you bolded do not apply to me in any way, shape or form. Neither does the other nonsense about external websites or newbie SPAs. What applies here however is your WP:SNOW AfD recklessness which is exacerbated by your refusal to understand how badly wrong you were and to withdraw this spurious AfD. Further, you post this notice on one of the most watched user talk pages on Wikipedia and then you try to play ignorant why people come in droves to support this SNOW-keep article? Please find something more constructive to do here than attack editors trying to save this worthy article. Unlike your attacks against me, I assume you can read. Have you read what I wrote about Google Books searches? Why don't you try and do a GBooks search and see page after page of RS coverage? Did you read what I wrote in my keep !vote? Dr. K. 01:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You became belligerent first, writing sarcastically "You mean you were not honest when you added it to this AfD? Sorry to hear that. I took you at your word". I am not referring to sockpuppets, as I've already said. I have acted in good faith. No requirement exists to notify creators about AFD's. I did despite knowing Corbett's talkpage is highly watched (and he has quite a few strong supporters) AusLondonder (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad if you thought my reply was "belligerent". It was a measured response to your crass insinuation: Let's not pretend this is not related to Eric Corbett. User:Dr.K. the template is not just about external referrals and sock puppets and it is plainly dishonest to suggest it is.. As far as Eric, please stop the ad-hominem, ad-Eric arguments. Please get used to it: This article easily passes GNG. Please do a GBooks search. And stop badgering the editors who !vote keep. It is the duty of each and every Wikipedian to support notable articles. Dr. K. 02:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad if you thought my reply was "belligerent". I know you are keen to defend Eric "please stop the...ad-Eric arguments" but I didn't nominate if because of him. What you call badgering other editors call deletion discussions. Since you take your "duty" so seriously, how often do you participate in deletion discussions? AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are keen to defend Eric Can you provide a diff to support this nonsense? I'll take care of your other nonsense when you address this point first. Dr. K. 02:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff AusLondonder (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that when I said: As far as Eric, please stop the ad-hominem, ad-Eric arguments. Please get used to it: This article easily passes GNG. it was because I was keen to defend Eric. This is a gross misrepresentation. I responded this way because you continuously allege that editors came here because they are friends of Eric. Not because I am keen to defend Eric.. I quote your words from above: The Corbett Defence League is out in force again. Do you fail to see this is an ad-hominem, ad-Eric argument? Are you in denial or have you just forgotten? Dr. K. 03:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps this AFD should also be a warning to new article creators of the problems with creating basically unsourced crap articles (because you devote most of your time on Wikipedia to being a prick). Also, very few of these sources give "significant coverage" but don't let that worry anyone. Let's just scrap notability guidelines if they will be ignored en masse when it suits. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nearly all. Clearly notable. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe article clearly doesn't meet the specified criteria for deletion; comments by the proposer ooze ill-will towards Eric Corbett and those who vote “keep” for an article that happens to have been created by him; and only a half-wit could fail to notice the timing here, considering that EC is the primary target in concurrent Arbcom shenanigans. This shabby AFD has all the credibility of a transparently vexatious litigation. Writegeist (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point, that Corbett has plenty of defenders and friends on this site. How he has got away with his battleground behaviour for so long is patently clear from this AFD. I was acting in good faith. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that’s been proved here is that six experienced editors (six — The Corbett Defense League out in force? Really?) see no merit in your nomination; rather, they have seen right through it. Here are two sentences you put together elsewhere (I mean, not on such as WO but here on WP) about a user other than EC; with two words changed, they aptly frame my view of what you’ve been up to here: I think you acted in bad faith and showed a serious lack of competence. I view it as worse coming from an experienced editor. Writegeist (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was by now expecting the first waves of SPA accounts, newbies with no signing skills, and those referred to this AfD by external websites. But so far I see only veteran editors !voting keep. I really wonder about the usefulness of that template. Dr. K. 05:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this, so for you to make these smart arse comments shows you are not acting in good faith here. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would consider withdrawing this nom. Again, however, I have always acted in good faith. I find the personal attacks on me non-constructive and rather telling. AusLondonder (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - First, I am here randomly, as in 99% of AfDs I comment on. Secondly, I'm probably a fool for getting involved considering all the personal attacks made here already. But, this does in fact appear to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Blatantly meets notability. I removed the PROD; AusLondonder, for your future reference there is no requirement for a reason for PROD removal to be given - read the template. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been attacked for removing PRODs. Removing a PROD means you object even if it is just because you object (of course removing them just to be disruptive is wrong). VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:37, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Ellen DeGeneres Show guests (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 list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If there were sources supporting the content on the page, I'd consider changing my vote but because the trivial list is completely unsourced, I vote to delete. Meatsgains (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this is of more value than List of The Ellen DeGeneres Show episodes. The guests are listed according to show date, so a comprehensive list of who has been on the show doesn't seem valuable to me. If this exists, would there be a precedent to have one for The Tonight Show, The View, etc. I don't find this necessary, it could get redundant.Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its gonna be a super long list and how would a person source it? Stick with info in episodes list. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These "list of long-lived talk show episode/guests" articles that go on for gigabytes need to seriously go (and those who create them find something much more useful to do here), but we have an episode list; this is duplicative. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rachael Ray guests, from the same article creator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is potentially a very exhaustive article and can already see redundancies galore. Tyler mongrove (talk) 15:26, 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. KTC (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyoaka Squire (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)

Previous PROD removed - Non notable author per WP:CREATIVE. Article is a possible WP:ADVERT for the web site. — Rod ^talk 20:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Gnews and Gbooks reveals not one hit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chikurubi Prison (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 is not notable (as per poor referencing), and has only a few incoming links. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a notorious prison in Zimbabwe which has received media coverage because of its regime and notable prisoners. Yes it needs more sourcing, but it is notable enough to meet the criteria. I'm not convinced this isn't just a disruptive editor at work, particularly because of the poor reasoning for the nomination. This is Paul (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lots of good quality media reports exist as to the notoriety of this prison. That they are not on the page just indicates that it needs improved refs. JMWt (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quality sourcing demonstrates notability and notoriety of the prison. AusLondonder (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needs expansion; appears to be notable with adequate source material including Highbeam.
  SBaker43 (talk) 15:21, 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. KTC (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Holobaugh (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 was deleted in 2013 because he didn't meet WP:NMMA. He still doesn't. I thought bringing this to AFD was better than asking for a speedy delete. If he ever gets 3 top tier fights the article can be recreated.Mdtemp (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did send this for Db-Repost but it was declined on the grounds that it was two years ago and there was some claim to a notable title. Not sure I agree with the rational but you could argue the article is different enough from the original deleted version. The subject has had only two top tier fights, both losses and over two years ago and there is no indication he will be given a third. Does not meet WP:NMMA.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the coverage consists on routine reporting of results so WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 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) 00:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed boxing (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 has been tagged since 2006. There's no indication of notability or significant coverage. Article seems to consist of a lot of original research.Mdtemp (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fringe topic of no indication of notability - mostly original research.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lots of things might exist, but this one is not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of unsourced claims, but zero significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:40, 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) 00:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mladen Kujundžić (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 notable as either an MMA fighter or kickboxer. As an MMA fighter he has not yet had any top tier fights. As a kickboxer he doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He doesn't meet WP:KICK or WP:NMMA. The only coverage I could find was routine sports reporting so I'd say he also doesn't meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:38, 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) 00:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kwanmudo (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 martial art that someone made up by combining existing styles. The article has no independent coverage at all. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability with a single primary source. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could find no significant independent coverage of this style or anything to show it meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 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) 00:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Magsayo (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)

Boxer who fails to meet WP:NBOX since youth titles do not prove notability and the only coverage is routine sports reporting. Article appears to have been created WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Delete it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination - does not meet WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Coverage is routine and youth titles do not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:44, 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) 00:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Lo Russo (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)

Purely promotional bio lacking evidence of notability. Some particularly awkward features are the mention that the subject has been awarded the "Nobel prize for best soundtrack" (!) and the "fake" sources removed here. (They are not sources, but simply links to the homepages of institutions Lo Russo is claimed to have attended.) The article was blp-prodded for having no sources a few hours after creation in August 2014. The creator then added a bunch of sources, none of them what I would call reliable nor secondary, and removed the prod. A sadly unattended AfD was filed by Piotrus a couple of days later, with no community input whatsoever, so it was closed as "no consensus". Of the four sources remaining today, three are from www.marcolorusso.com. Note also that the article has been deleted ten times on Italian wikipedia, for promotion, copyvio, recreation after being deleted per community discussion, etc.[5] Ten times. When I saw that, I was tempted to speedy this English version per IAR, but, well, since it was once prodded, I suppose not. I hope it won't fall through the cracks for lack of interest again. Please discuss. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this needs further investigation, preferably by someone who reads Italian. On the face of it, the page has a lot of claims with no good quality references to prove them. But.. if all of these claims stand up, I think it is fair to describe the subject as being notable. The puzzling part is that some of these seem to me to be things that one would expect to find a mention of in a secondary source, so rather than having the page deleted multiple times on it.wiki, I wonder why the previous editors (both here and at it.wiki) did not work on improving at least some of the references for the claims.

I speak no Italian, however it does appear that versions of these achievements are recorded in various places (such as festival blubs) like here. I have no idea whether the artist has submitted this themselves or whether any checks are made, but it does make me wonder whether there are actually some decent references out there.

It seems to me that he has not written/edited the interviews himself and they appear genuine, hence they meet the criteria for sections 1 and 4 of WP:MUSICBIO. If refs could be found for the claims, the page also would appear to have grounds for sections 6, 9 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO.

As it stands, it seems to me to be basically impossible to tell whether this is accurate information but poorly referenced or simply delusional self-promotion. JMWt (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, good points. Well, we have two Italian speakers below (Giano and Alex2006). Bishonen | talk 10:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete No doubt a talented musician, but then so am I and nobody wants to listen to me. Not notable. Giano (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Moreover, I asked an admin on wiki:it about it, and he told me that the article on wiki:it was canceled 10 times and had 204 canceled edits. The deletion logs explain ad abundantiam why it was canceled, and I cannot imagine that users and admins in his homeland can be less smart than us in deciding about its notability. Here the article could survive until now only because it went unnoticed. moreover, the overall tone of the article sounds pretty delusional to me. This guy is also steadily trying to insert himself at wiki:it als "notable citizen" of Sermoneta, the tiny central Italian village where he apparently lives, and also there he is steadily reverted. Alex2006 (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thank you, Bishonen, from shining light again on this vanity/promo entry. I stand by my original conclusion that this fails WP:MUSICBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 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. Mkdw^talk 23:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Thornton (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)

BLP whose only current references from subject's own web page and IMDb. Interesting career track, and there's enough film work here to dissuade me from tagging it for an WP:A7 speedy, but I didn't find enough for him to pass notability standards for any of the particular aspects of his career (WP:NACTOR, WP:DIRECTOR, WP:MANOTE, or as an attorney), or in general per WP:GNG. Casting the delsort net far and wide, though, in case I'm wrong --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no significant coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. No supporting evidence is given by any reliable sources that he's notable as an actor, attorney, or martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If only some of those claims could be supported through RS I might have some pause but I have to agree with the above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You tube videos and autobiographical writings do not show notability. Doesn't meet any SNG and lacks the signficiant independent coverage to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially unsourced BLP. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article is promotional and most references are more or less advertisements for the company's products. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and do a WP:NPOV cleanup and stub it) Quicky search turned up enough possible refs from indy sources like SF chronicle, UK Independent, idigitaltimes, forbes[6] to make good claim to notability. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only if it can actually be better improved but if not, delete for now until a better article can be made and the latter may actually be better (deleting for now). SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - afd is not a clean-up service. nor is it a tool to request expansion of article, as it is a notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article has sense been cleaned from promotional content. There was no need for an AFD if someone had cleaned up the content. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afif Chaya (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 —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At least for now. There is nothing in English I can find to establish notability. I left a message on the project page for Lebanon and hopefully they can provide some direction. If not, there simply are not any sources to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you're using Google's Chrome browser it automatically translates the Arabic refs. If you're not, simply copypaste the links into Google Translate. English refs are not required, of course, and he seems to be a highly notable figure in Lebanese cinema. The refs do meet WP:GNG. 19:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very aware. Also aware that non-English references can be used which is why I pinged the project. Can you tell me which of the references from the Arabic version are considered reliable sources; or, which ones amount to significant coverage? To me they all show he exists, but do not amount to anything more than IMDb type references. Notability still requires significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 3/4, 5 and 6 seems like WP:RS to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the depth? The one doesn't even mention his name, just has a picture. How does this suffice? These in no way meet any type of significant coverage, even if we can assume the source are reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you're referring to 3/4, the one with the big picture, it does mention him by name, rather prominently, both in the headline and body copy. It doesn't auto translate, for some reason, on my browser -- but I pasted the link into Google Translate. Again, I think the coverage is sufficient. We both understand we're dealing with Arabic media where finding refs is tricky for us. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree. If those references were in English reliable sources they would not even be close to establishing notability based on their depth. Like you say, it may "mention," but mentions are not enough to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, but one of them is the equivalent of a full page article on him. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, again let's assume. All sources will be assumed reliable and "one" will be assumed to be in depth. That gives us "one" which still does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. And, that's still under the assumption that the sources are reliable and the one can be considered in depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now unless it can actually be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If these references aren't enough I can search more Arabic references.--Ammar Alwaeli (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anmar. I can only speak for me, but additional references is something I would like to see. You state to keep the article, but since AfD is note a !vote count, can you provide your rationale for keeping the article? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it would help the article a lot if it said something more substantive about the subject in the body of the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 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. KTC (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M G Leonard (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)

As yet unpublished children's author. Clearly has a hot agent but I do not think that makes her notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG Sources I can find are all social media or press release; selling an individual book does not qualify for WP:NAUTHOR - way WP:TOOSOON Scr★pIron^IV 16:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree entirely, no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't appear to be notable. Will happily !vote the other way in a year's time if she has an international best seller :) Thparkth (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. with no prejudice to re-creation in 2016 after it has been published and reviewed, if the book does in fact become important--but at that point perhaps the article should be on the book, as it is a first novel and there is no other notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 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) 00:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve America (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)

Biography of a person who does not appear to meet notability criteria. As a musician he doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, and as a wrestler he doesn't seem to meet WP:ATHLETE - there are no specific criteria for wrestlers, but professional wrestling is apparently covered by WP:ENT which he also doesn't meet. As for general notability, there are a few sources from local newspapers, which does not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The Valley article is really good, but it is local. There is nothing I find outside of that which would establish notability. Looks like an interesting guy, but fails WP:GNG.
• Delete - Simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:09, 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 speedy delete as WP:G4.The sources added do not address the grounds for the previous deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain of Tears (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)

Sources are no way good enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as stand-alone article, not notable at this time. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know that we need to have another discussion as this was deleted at Afd just last year. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and concur with speedy deletion. Thparkth (talk) 18:54, 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. KTC (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WISeKey (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 article is large copy-and-pasted from the company's own website, and it basically reads like an advertisement. It does not appear to establish why the company is notable. A look at the edit history indicates that it may have been largely created by someone with a connection to the company's CEO. A search of Google News does turn up several results, but they all look like puffery to me and not references that would establish this as a notable corporation. Shritwod (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, a promo piece cited to the company website. Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising of a non-notable company. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources. Mirror360 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font.  22:38, 13 November 2016 (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 merge to British Aerospace 125#Accidents and incidents. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Execuflight Flight EFT1526 (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 private business jet accident, sad that it is fatal but wikipedia is not a news feed and biz jet crashes are not that uncommon and are rarely notable. No wiki notable people involved so would not even merit a mention in the aircraft article so certainly doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially WP:NOTNEWS.TheLongTone (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per Ahunt and TheLongToneTSRL (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the deadliest air crash in Akron, Ohio and Summit County, Ohio in history. Also, unusual for business jet disasters, all occupants represent high-order executives of one real-estate company in Florida, effectively wiping it out. These reasons are not mentioned by the nominator, and I think non-Wikiproject Aviation concerns ought to have a weight in the article's notability. Also, the unusual involvement of the forensic anthropology team from proximate but out of state university to identify the dead. The NTSB findings, if they involve stall on approach and icing may have interesting recommendations for the type. The article has been viewed some 1200 times in the first 24-hour bar of its existence on the stats site, so it is clearly fulfilling Wikipedia's mission to inform. Finally, it is a damn-well written article, and I'd hate to have all my work go poof. --Mareklug ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crashes like this are Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill and happen on a weekly basis and are no more notable than a van or bus crash. No enduring effects beyond the deaths involved, no indication of a need for a change in procedures, airwothiness directives, etc. Also runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Just because an aircraft crashed is not reason to have an article on each and every one. The media sensationalizes aircraft accidents and does not treat other transportation accidents the same way. Wikipedia does not have to succumb to this media sensationalism. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reason as Ahunt. Just because it is the worst aircraft crash in Summit County, Ohio doesn't mean it deserves it's own article. For those people saying that accidents like these are rare, look at the ASN wikibase and you will see that accidents like these actually do happen all the time. The only reason this particular one was on the news was because it occurred in the USA. In short, this crash fails the requirements needed to have it's own article. 111.69.111.24 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to British Aerospace 125#Accidents and incidents, to join all the other crashes that fail WP:AIRCRASH. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect with above comment of Clarityfiend. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: According to ASN listing for the type, this is the 3rd deadliest for 26 occurrences since 1975 and the deadliest outside Africa. --Mareklug ^talk 04:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as noted before, the crash is the deadliest in that area (county), also the investigation is still ongoing so its too early to say that this has no notability.--Halls4521 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's too early to decide whether to delete or not. While it may not be enough for notability, this crash was reported nationally and internationally on many news networks (i.e.: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.) and social media. It wasn't just a local news matter. Also, the NTSB is still investigating the matter as it is unknown what caused the crash (not to mention there was no call for help from the plane). I would at least wait till after the findings are released.--Halls4521 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It will be at least a year and perhaps much longer before the NTSB has the cause determined and a final report published. We don't start articles on every crash in the hopes that it may turn out to have some future significance. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. It would be better to delete it now and then recreate it in several years time, if it turns out to have any significance. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I've been around Wikipedia since early 2000s, and I still scratch my head about the imperative to remove articles such as this. Forget the catfight about notability, people: This article has been viewed 1600 times when it was called 2015 Akron Raytheon Hawker 800 crash, then 1200 times on the first night out, and then 2500+ on the second (before the latest and likely the last page move), far more than the usual grab for WP:DYK articles linked from the Main Page. This article has not been promoted by anyone anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. Doesn't this tell you there is a market for it? People are reading it. Why, why would you kill it? --Mareklug ^talk 02:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: "People are reading the article" is not an argument for keeping an article. Millions of people read the National Enquirer, but that does not prove the content is of value or, in this case that it meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Summit County, Ohio as the deadliest air crash for the county -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep Biz Jet crashes are not common at all and BAE125/Hawker 700 crashes are very rare - so rare as to be historic events. This event is so far unsolved and the cause of this crash is likely to be important to other operators of this type aircraft as well as aviation safety investigators. Please do not delete.cw5301 ^talk 08:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep as per above. This is an event which has been reported on by numerous news agencies as well as social media, and crashes involving the BAe 125 are few and far between.BrayLockBoy (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is not a "run of the mill" accident. A jet carrying 9 people crashed into an apartment building, killing all aboard and destroying the building. And despite what is suggested in the nomination, business jet crashes with fatalities are rare. Strong keep, as a rare business jet crash with numerous fatalities and a notable part of Akron's history. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wide press coverage. 95.133.216.22 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not a common accident - business jets do not randomly fall out of the sky on approach, into apartment buildings, decimating structures on land. This is neither run of the mill nor common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basit.mustafa (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not sure where the idea the biz jet crashes are rare this is just one of eight fatal biz jet crashes this year, being in the news does not make it notable for a stand-alone article. Previous consensus is such accidents need to have killed somebody notable or hit something notable or caused a change to the way the industry operates, this not the case here. Also note if this is the worst fatal accident at Akron-Canton Airport then a mention there is not a problem but it is not notable for a mention elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't the deadliest? In Summit County? We have an RS that claims it to be so, taking into account the WWII crash of a bomber. --Mareklug ^talk 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Then that might make it notable to the county and it should be mentioned in Summit County, Ohio. It doesn't need a stand-alone article for that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS sst✈^discuss 02:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge per above, a crash of a private business jet without long-term implications or historical impact. Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 21 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) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Haider (Blogger) (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)

Lack of reliable sources; dubious notability. —Swpb^talk 14:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with Speedy A7--Musa Talk  14:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"was awarded the Best Pakistani Blogger of 2014 by the Punjab Government officials" is a credible claim of significance, so A7 cannot be applied. If I could have, I would have. —Swpb^talk 17:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nominator Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable for stand-alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Request snow!! - Simply nothing to show notability that would come close to WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENT. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 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) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L.K. Elliot (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Coverage is self-published or weak. Subject's book is self-published and does not appear to be notable. Tone is non-encyclopedic and promotional. ubiquity (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Spammy, no credible claim of significance (borderline WP:CSD#A7). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly non-notable, and the links on the page aren't reliable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly too soon. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 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. KTC (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FinancesOnline (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)

Unnotable company, with an article propped up by press releases and passing mentions in media. No actual sign of coverage or of notability. Calton | Talk 14:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is not set for a notable article yet. Notifying PRODder DGG. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The refs. are essentially just to their own publications. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 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 keep - Merge proposal ignored as it's an AFD (Articles for deletion) so any Merges should be discussed on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verse of evil eye (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:N, WP:V and possibly WP:RS. I've tried to search the following terms on Google: "verse of evil eye", "verse of the evil eye", "ayah of evil eye", "ayah of the evil eye", "ayat of evil eye", "ayat of the evil eye" and even in Indonesian (language of the largest Muslim population) "ayat mata jahat", "ayah mata jahat". Disregarding Wikipedia-sourced websites, none of them gave ANY hit, except 1 doubtful and minor mention for "ayah of the evil eye". The Arabic term given in the article in no way means Verse of the evil eye, but more like Verse "And indeed, those", originating from the first few words of verse 68:52. This may be further evidence that we are dealing with OR or maybe even a hoax. The present sources are either references to the Qur'an or seem to merely support the evil eye in general rather than a verse. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that the grammatically correct "verse of the evil eye" appears nowhere on the whole web is a tell-tale sign that this is either made up or some fringe interpretation of the verse in question. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The name of article was selected according to concept of the verse. The verse refers to a kind of psychological effects. Therefore, this name is not translation of verse but also is concept and deep meaning of the verse. Also, please see 1, 2, 3, and 4. Saff V. (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @MatthewVanitas: Please say your idea about the article.Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The above mentioned sources by the editor are WP:RS which is why WP:N is met by the article.JugniSQ (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to be good evidence of sources which describe this verse as being the one about the evil eye. Of course, not everyone refers to it in that way, given that it is a general term for the translation of a phrase in another language. I'm struggling to see how else one could summarise this verse and what it is about. JMWt (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been googling around and found some bits and pieces indicating that verses 68:51-52 are indeed sometimes used to ward off the evil eye. The most reliable source implying this, is a mention in the Encyclopaedia Iranica: The image of ʿAlī and Ḏu’l-Faqār was popular on amulets accompanied by the koranic verses used against the evil eye (68:51-52; Donaldson, pp. 130-31, 240).

HOWEVER, there is still not a single source that actually gives a name to these two verses. While verse 2:255 is known widely as the Verse of the Throne, I haven't been able to find a similarly widespread name for 68:51-52. Also taking into account that the current article only includes a quote from the Qur'an and some general information about the evil eye, I now think it is better to merge the useful bits of this article into Evil eye#In Islam. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGarudaPlease see four sources that I mentioned above.Saff V. (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V., I don't really understand what you are trying to say with these sources. None of them tell that 68:51-52 is "The verse of evil eye", but only that this verse is evidence for the existence of the evil eye. However, verse 12:67 has also been mentioned as evidence for the existence of the evil eye. Should 12:67 also be named "The verse of evil eye"? Additionally, 68:51-52 is interpreted as disbelievers accusing Muhammad of being a madman, an accusation which is "but a reminder to all the creatures". Perhaps we should use "The verse of the madman" or "The verse of accusing Muhammad" or "The verse of the reminder"? What I'm trying to say is that you cannot just invent names for verses without sources to back up said name. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGarudaI think that you are angry.Saff V. (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no... I'm just trying to uphold Wikipedia's no original research and notability standards. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that's best discussed by whichever wikiproject is looking after these kinds of pages, but you are in effect arguing that this (essentially equivalent) page should rather be part of this one. To me that's a question to debate amongst the people writing the page and not one to be discussed here - the question for us here is about notability, and I think it is pretty clear even within what you've written above that the page title is a reasonable name for the idea. JMWt (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that uncommon for deletion discussions to turn into merger discussions. It is even mentioned in Wikipedia's deletion manual, so there is no reason why deletion discussers should abstain from merger proposals. Besides, anyone has the right to be involved; remember the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

If we're going to draw equivalents, then I would say that the proposed move is more like moving "Spilling wine" to Spilling salt, since spilling wine is used to avert the bad luck associated with spilling salt. And no, the current page title does not conform to Wikipedia's naming conventions (Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject). The only unique statement in the current article, is its anti-evil eye effect; the rest of the article is, I repeat, either a quote from the Qur'an or stuff about the evil eye in general. That tiny bit of unique information does, again, not warrant an entire article of its own. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mhhossein: Please contribute in this discussion.Saff V. (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The merger is not valid here per the very WP:MERGE. As it is mentioned there, "...mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions... ." We should let the AFD work and of course the editors may reach consensus to merge it into another article while this is not the case and there's no consensus! Mhhossein (talk) 05:58, 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. KTC (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hearn (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)

Notability Having been the only person to edit this page in a year, and seeing the severe lack of content, I would like to propose deletion. Most of the content is covered by Kind Consumer Limited, and the rest seems to have be not very notable - one news source, that doesn't seem to be notable itself, reporting on it. byo (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coverage not substantial enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 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. Nomination withdrawn, non admin closure. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. The sources provided are mere self-published material. I really can't fine the evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn to Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Comment, possibly redirect to the book The Misfit Economy which easily meets WP:NBOOK with reviews in The Financial Times - [7], The Economist - [8], The National - [9], Forbes (actually an interview) - [10], New York Daily News - [11], Dallas News - [12], Stanford Social Innovation Review - [13], Harvard Business Review - [14], phew, I think that will do. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBIO is not the same as WP:NBOOK and redirect will only be possible if the book in question already have an article here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, here it is: The Misfit Economy, have changed my above keep to a comment of possible redirect, but to be balanced we would also need to make a redirect for co-author, Phillips, so maybe just delete unless editors believe Clay is notable apart from the book.Coolabahapple (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Misfit Economy. However, I have no prejudice against a redirect but it seems she meet WP:AUTHOR#3 per the review of her work. I'm withdrawing my nomination with alacrity for now. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:15, 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. KTC (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marif Piraev (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 mixed martial artist. Does not meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely fails WP:NMMA. Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant independent coverage (youtube videos don't count). The article claims he's had some success in martial arts, but no sources are given nor are specific titles mentioned. Things like "The prizewinner of Russia on Boxing" and "World Champion in Universal Fighting" need supporting evidence and explanations.Mdtemp (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find (and the article doesn't have) significant sources to show he meets GNG. He doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and there's no sources to support any claims he's a notable martial artist (see WP:MANOTE). The most I could find was a results article showing he won his division at the Moscow city sambo championships and qualified to compete at the national championships. I don't believe that's enough to claim he's a notable martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 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 A7 by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 16:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey Of 1000 Miles Begins With A Single Step (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)

Author page was speedy deleted for G11. I hunted up and down and could not find even a single mention of this book by "Joey Pignataro" I could not even find simple proof of existence. This book is not even mentioned on Sen.com. Jcmcc (Talk) 10:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any mention of it in any of the normal places. Either the title is wrong or the book doesn't exist. JMWt (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as hoax. Only hit for author's last name and book title is previously A7d article for Joey Pignataro, created by same author on same day - http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Joey_Pignataro —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:25, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RobLuna (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 notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has many sources but none are reliable sources with any coverage of him. Releases are only mixtapes and are not on an important label. Posted at RobLuna instead of Rob Luna in a bad faithed way of avoiding salt. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please help us prevent this page from being marked for deletion, it has been on Wikipedia for over a year and as of recent weeks, there appears to be some sort of malicious intent towards trying to take this page down.

There are many authors that have worked on this page and it seems that the following statement of "Releases are only mixtapes and are not on an important label." is a very biased opinion when in fact mixtapes are very common in the hip hop industry and are released by many other mainstream artists.

Also, please consider that this person does have reliable resources, for example, one of the links cited in the article is for a verified Facebook page under "Rob Luna Music" (in which Facebook only issues to notable figures) and this person is also credited for notable work on films/movies referenced on IMdB (Internet Movie Database). Thank you for your help in all of this.Jackboro1 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Jackboro1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Neutral Well, I'm leaning on remove since Jackboro1 has just blatantly lied. The article is most certainly not "years" old. If you look at its history, it was made November 4th, 2015. Also, I agree the posting under RobLuna rather than Rob Luna is shady. I may change my views as the topic goes on. Fritzmann2002 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fritzmann2002, we should not assume any wrong doing in this case (nor make accusations). It seems that when the original page "Rob_Luna" was maliciously deleted, the year+ long history would of disappeared as well. The history you are referring to (as dating November 4th) could simply be from a recent attempt to recreate the deleted page. Jackboro1 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page name change (from "Rob_Luna" to "RobLuna"), it looks like Derek_R_Bullamore (a Master Editor III) made an honest attempt to help contribute/restore and clean URL issues. Either way, thanks for putting your time into this guys.Jackboro1 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Jackboro1 do you know of any references that the person has not contributed himself? Surely it is fairly obvious that a facebook page is not independent secondary evidence? Are there music news articles etc about him? JMWt (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove - After JMWt's comment, I'm changing my vote to remove. I've looked at the sources and they do not seem reliable. If Jackboro1 can find one reliable source, however, I would say Keep. Fritzmann2002 13:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person has an established IMDb page located here http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0526084 and also TCM (Turner Classic Movies) page http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/1161032%7C0/Rob-Luna/filmography.htmlJackboro1 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The TCM link seems a bit better, but that only lists two films. Seems to me someone might do that before they've actually become notable (eg they were involved as an intern, say). If this is the best you have, I'm afraid I'm coming down on the side of Delete.JMWt (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cleaned up clutter, some duplicate keeps (done out of not understanding process, sorry) and spam Jackboro1 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral There are good points made from everyone here. I would want to see what else can be found on the subject especially pertaining to notability. We all need to make sure we adhere to the already set guidelines as opposed to judging based on our individual opinions. I might be leaning on remove depending on what else is provide/argued. But I am also leaning on the side of keep, especially since there are items in WP:GNG that ARE satisfactory. Tyler mongrove (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• To Jackboro1: do not delete votes from a deletion discussion, or otherwise delete comments and markups from a deletion discussion, as you did here: [15]. You deleted two separate delete votes. The way you deleted them to me looks like deliberate and misleading vandalism. I'm reposting my comment and tagging SwisterTwister whose comment was also removed. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't seem to find any reliable coverage of this person. Citations on the page aren't reliable, either from blogs or social media, and mentions of him are trivial. Not enough to establish notability or pass WP:NMUSIC. FuriouslySerene (talk) 9:42 am, 12 November 2015, last Thursday (4 days ago) (UTC−5)
• Delete as the current article is not suggesting how he is better notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 15:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I say if Paris Hilton has notability then so can a lot of these folks! But on a serious note gents, I've heard of him on the radio (hip hop) so he's definitely known BillWyman (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC) — BillWyman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT both RobLuna and Rob Luna, fails WP:BASIC and does not qualify for anything under WP:MUSICBIO. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:41, 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 01:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahaddin Gaziyev (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 clear case of no better notability and improvement with my best search links only this which is hardly useful. There are a few more links at the Russian Wiki but I simply see no convincingly better improvement here for this article from May 2006. Pinging past users Mursel and only still active taggers RJFJR and Ground Zero as well as interested subject users Wikimandia and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 08:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I added his name in Azerbaijani (Bahəddin Həziyev). He has extensive coverage and is referred to as a "well-known journalist" and "outstanding figure in Azerbaijani media" [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The ruWP article says he is editor of the main opposition newspaper in the country. That amounts to notability DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per DGG; English sources may be difficult to find but that doesn't keep him from being notable.
  SBaker43 (talk) 01:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mallory (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)

Definitely deletable as this article is questionably notable and improvable with my best search links this, this and this. Should this be deleted, it may be best to replace it with the Michael Mallory from Recurring characters of Sliders (I'm willing to initiate it) and it's worth noting this is what the article initially had. Pinging tagger Fram and interested subject users LaMona, Tokyogirl79 and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 08:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable to me. His books are well represented on OCLC WorldCat [21]. Rmhermen (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... the problem with this is that WorldCat holdings aren't really considered to be a sign of notability at this point in time. If an author has their books in 200+ libraries apiece (meaning each book is in 200+ libraries) then that can help bolster notability along with other sources, but so far this is considered to be more of an exclusionary tool than an inclusionary one. Basically, we would still need coverage in independent and reliable sources, as WC by itself is not enough to save an article. I've lobbied to have WC listings used as a sign of notability (if the author has 2+ books in 200+ libraries each) but so far there has been no consensus that it should be included. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Library holdings can be a sign of notability whenever we want it to, for any individual case. If we do it enough times, it will become common practice and then a practical guideline. We make our own rules, and we can make exception. Tokyogirl79, since you agree with me that it should be accepted, why not vote to make an exception here? DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little nervous to do that since it isn't officially part of the guidelines at this point in time. I do like the idea of setting more precedent, but I want to make sure that there's some sourcing to ensure that it can't be brought back to AfD until this officially gets added. However I am finding some sourcing that shows that his work is frequently cited as authoritative in academic sourcing like this: [22], [23], [24]. One of his books has received a review from Famous Monsters of Filmland, but I'm having some trouble finding the review at this point in time. He's received coverage from Blastr too. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I managed to find just enough to show that he's fairly well thought of in his field and that there is coverage of his work. His work seems to be frequently cited in academic texts like this and this, along with the ones I've linked above. He's also won a Derringer Award, which is fairly major in the mystery world - enough to where it'd at least give partial notability. FWIW, I do think that library holdings should count towards notability if there are sufficient numbers for each book, so hopefully the evidence given can help show proof that large library holdings can be signs of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepComment - without wishing to venture an opinion on the notability of this article, Tokyogirl79 is surely right, we don't need to make exceptions: if someone is notable, there will be reliable sources. If those sources haven't caught up yet, then it is WP:TOOSOON and the article should be deleted or moved to user space to await better sources. Thus if a book has library holdings and is worth reviewing, reviews will arrive, and we should wait for those. Many rules are worth challenging; the notability rules are lax enough as they are. However, since Tokyogirl179 has found some sources, this probably just about scrapes over the (ridiculously low) notability bar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The WC argument (for notability) is: If he's produced the volume of material summarized in the article there have been reviews, criticisms, bibliographies produced; we haven't found them yet. I'm not listed in OCLC; hence it's almost certain that I don't have a claim to notability from writing. Given the subjects of his material, it probably won't be in the usual places.
  SBaker43 (talk) 02:02, 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. KTC (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of English–Spanish false friends (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)

WP:NOTDIC I see that there is an appendix on Wiktionary, anything here but not there can be merged, but this clearly isn't encyclopedic content. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trivial information. I don't see any other false friends lists. I added one of the tables to the false friends article as it needed more examples. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it does seem more appropriate for Wiktionary. LjL (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, poorly cited, many dubious examples. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this is a topic or lesson plan in all Spanish classes in the United States. However, I'm not sure how easy this would be to source it. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general topic of false friends is certainly notable, but that doesn't automatically extend to this list. LjL (talk) 21:48, 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. KTC (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Khair Muslehuddin (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's subject appears to lack genuine notability. Awards received are not themselves notable, degrees earned irrelevant, being inspector general of bangladesh police sounds important but even this only comes from what is essentially an obituary (i.e., WP:ROUTINE. KDS4444^Talk 09:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - You do have valid points. It is hard to find non obituary articles who was alive before 2002 in bangladeshi newspapers. Further search only revealed more death anniversary articles both in English and Bengali. Besides only Abul Khair Muslehuddin Foundation publishes the press release. So, yes, we should delete this article.Altaf (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until a better article can be made with better and likely archived sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 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 keep. Closing this early per WP:SNOWCLOSE. Please observe WP:BEFORE. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth A. Wood (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's primary reference is an obituary. Other references are only WP:trivial mentions. Subject does not appear to meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NPEOPLE, or WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 09:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the person who wrote the page, I don't see that there is an issue with the primary source being an obit when it was published in a reliable source; this isn't uncommon here on Wikipedia. The notability seems to me established by the facts that: she was the first woman in her Bell Labs department, that she contributed to major innovations, and that there is a science writing award given in her honor. This is a new article and should have been tagged for improvement rather than AfD.Alafarge (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I fail to see the problem with using an obit as a source, especially since it was an obit written by a professional society, indicating that she was important and notable within the society. She also has an award named after her, and is written up in several books and articles I found with a 5-second Google search. I urge the nominator to withdraw this. Keilana (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Going by WP:NACADEMICS, the subject appears to meet, at a minimum, #3 (fellow of the American Physical Society) and #6 (president of the American Crystallographic Association), and likely #1 (developing the first notation for surface crystallography; see Unertl, Physical Structure, p. 26). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily passes the GNG. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "1942... Physical Research Department of Bell Telephone Laboratories, where she was their first woman scientist" - this is a huge distinction at the nation's premier research lab of the era. In a quick search, I also found this cool photo, of her being the first person that President Lyndon Johnson talked to via videophone [25] and here [26]. Too bad we have to wait for copyright expiration to use those photos. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  20:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  20:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• snowy Keep Clear case of the nominator failing to do WP:BEFORE and nominating an article as it was being created. Clearly meets GNG and ACADEMIC. Bias in news coverage of women before the present era often results in obituaries being one of the most significant sources for details of their lives. If the provider is a RS, and other documentation corroborates, why would one assume it is trivial? Triviality is not a mark of length, it is a mark of depth. A single sentence saying someone invented, was president, had an award named after them, etc. carries depth and weight regardless of its length. Fuzheado very cool photos. Wonder if they could be used as fair use with the rationale of limited use to improve recognition of a deceased person? SusunW (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG easily. Fuzchia (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The article as nominated already included multiple nontrivial reliable sources, demonstrating a pass of WP:GNG. The nominator needs to learn the difference between newspaper obituaries that are paid for by the family of the deceased (not relevant for notability) and published obituaries in newspapers or academic journals that are solicited by the publication (as good as any other source for GNG). The nominator's claim that the other sources are trivial is also not true — at least, for me, a trivial mention would be a sentence mentioning the subject in a paragraph about someone or something else, or a source that quotes the subject but is not about the subject. Here, the "Women of Science" paper has a full paragraph entirely about the subject and her accomplishments, and "American Women of Science Since 1900" has a full-length entry, approximately 1.5 pages. In addition, her role as the first female president of the American Crystallographic Association and her honors as fellows of AAAS and APS as well as of two more specialized societies give her multiple clear passes of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - clearly passes GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep. Important female crystallographer. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy keep, per David Eppstein. Nsk92 (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeo, obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 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. KTC (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content Relations (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 article is a marketing WP:NEOLOGISM (of the type that marketing and public relations executives make up so that they can sound clever and important). References either reinforce the concept as a neologism or do not even mention the term. No evidence of notability, subject title too vague to even properly research. KDS4444^Talk 09:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. First source fulfills WP:NOTNEO easily. FrameDrag (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now until better can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 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 keep. (I've also amended the indenting and have added * to the front, Hope no one minds.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Point InsideOut (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's references are either trivial mentions, listings in databases, or come from contexts with narrow/ limited audiences. Label is not notable. Article would require multiple non-trivial references from independent reliable (i.e., widely-read or widely circulated) sources to be retained. KDS4444^Talk 08:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: @3family6, Ilovechristianmusic, and Walter Görlitz: This article passes GNG and BAND, by various ways.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Cross Bearer: What are those "various ways?" Your vote doesn't count for much if you cannot articulate why the article should be kept.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: Comment; This entry should be kept, where it meets GNG for its reviews in Cross Rhythms, Indie Vision Music, AllMusic and 365 Days of Inspiring Media. The entry is about a BAND, where they have charted two albums on the United States' national music chart Billboard magazine. These are the "various ways" it meets our standards for inclusion.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep discussed in several sources. Even if these are predominantly album reviews, they provide enough significant coverage of the band itself to warrant an article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With two charting albums, they pass the notability guideline for musicians. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - They've got two albums that have charted, and the article is referenced enough to keep. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]