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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Meer[edit]

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

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

nn singer ; tagged for a year - üser:Altenmann >t 23:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 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 Redirected to Salvation Army camps in Canada. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Ponds[edit]

Twin Ponds (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)

Seems to be a completely non-notable Salvation Army camp. Kelly ^hi! 23:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Its desolate location makes it worth knowing. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Camps can be notable as human settlements of a kind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Summer_camps_in_Canada), this one seems to have 100-200 people at times. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Its desolate location..." isn't an argument for anything. Gwen, I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be rewriting WP:NPLACE; I don't see anything in NPLACE that would apply here. Conversely, there's nothing in the article that suggests this passed the GNG, and I can't find anything through Google that makes this noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems like it's closer to a hotel than to a town or other populated place. This isn't a place people live, this is a place people visit sometimes, right? The lack of sources makes this harder to understand, but this appears to be a retreat or summer camp, which is basically a commercial operation with religious ties. Having a capacity of a couple hundred people isn't the same as having a population of a couple hundred people. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not appear to be a permanently populated place, and cited sources do not suffice to show notability. -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks to be more of a business entity since it is rented out so WP:NORG might be a way to look at it, in which case it fails. It is not a permanently populated place, nor would I call it an 'attraction or landmark' so NPLACE does not apply. It does not come close to passing GNG. Jbh^Talk 12:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a place but a small part/facility of a larger organisation. Not notable in any way. AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - oh man, there are a whole bunch of these. I just noticed ((Salvation Army camps in Canada)). Kelly ^hi! 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A mass series of WP:POINTy, WP:WIKIHOUNDing nominations targeting User:Neelix-created articles, as stated as User_talk:Kelly#Neelix. Opposing on procedural grounds alone. This is apparently retribution over an issue now at this ANI thread as well as Neelix's editing around Tara Teng -- neither of which are related to the charitable organizations he is now taking to Afd. Per WP:BOOMERANG, it is Kelly's disruptive editing that is now a problem, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are now being WP:POINTy yourself, User:Shawn in Montreal! Also 'oppose' is not a valid position. It is quite right that these issues be raised. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've changed this !vote to a comment. As for this vendetta to purge Wikipedia of all Neelix created articles -- notable or not, often with the flimsiest of rationales from Kelly -- I think it's a disservice to this project and to these perfectly innocent organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a flimsy rationale, I think it's a flimsy article. The innocence of the organization is not a factor in determining if the article is worth keeping. This was presented neutrally, so unless there's some evidence to the contrary, words like "vendetta" don't seem to be assuming good faith. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't !vote to keep this article. But WP:AGF is not a carte blanche. Based on what I've seen at other Afds by Kelly today, these are in many cases not merit-based rationales. Time and again, I've seen notable Canadian organizations taken to Afd with flimsy, cookie cutter rationales. I never said we keep articles on the basis of "innocence," of course, I simply meant Afds on articles that do meet WP:ORG, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Servants Anonymous Society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACT Alberta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASHI and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Better World. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn stop being the pot calling the kettle black. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Salvation Army camps in Canada, as merging/redirecting to the parent article generally is the standard in situations like this. Apparently Twin Ponds is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but certainly it is worth mentioning in the relevant list. Cavarrone 06:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just setup Salvation Army camps in Canada last night, and put this one in there too now. The ((Salvation Army camps in Canada)) is now at TfD. I think we can close this one out Kelly since the info is preserved and a decent article covering all Canadian camps created instead. All camps redirected to the one article. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for creating that page. I agree Salvation Army camps in Canada makes this AfD moot. Cavarrone 08:02, 10 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chimney breast[edit]

Chimney breast (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)

More of a dictionary definition than anything. I think anything useful here is already contained in chimney. Kelly ^hi! 23:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge the only mention in chimney is in an external link. Peter James (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. A non-trivial well-known easily verifiable architecture element, easily expandable. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep As above, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chimney-breast). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; a Google Book search proves this a notable-enough term. Citing a dictionary isn't helpful, given that DICDEF is the rationale given for deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my botch there, guess I was too keen on showing it wasn't but a cooked-up neogolism (given the background with those as you're more than aware), cites like this abound. Thanks for the nudge! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem--there is, as I saw also, plenty of good material in architectural books. It just takes a lover--of architecture, not of boobs. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to ChimneyFireplace. As it stands this content could easily be incorporated there. There doesn't seem significant scope for improvement. --Michig (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge into fireplace and/or chimney. -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Fireplace is probably a better target and it is already mentioned there. --Michig (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fireplace. No need for a stand alone article. Jbh^Talk 13:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The fascination of the creator with breasts even extends to chimney breasts! Give me strength. Merge for now. Could possibly be re-created by a more competent editor with more content per WP:TNT if necessary. AusLondonder (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fireplace, I agree. It doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually a real term, and deletion proves little. Amazingly enough, there are specific terms for the filling material in such construction, and so on. Abstruse? Maybe. Delete? No. Collect (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fireplace. This guy is beyond belief. Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think I added enough to overcome WP:DICDEF issues. There's still a question of whether it's best merged, but I'm seeing sources which make it clear this is a distinct architectural element with noted cultural variation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and yes, as others have already noted, despite the trends noted in the article creator's interests, this is a real thing for which there are easy to find sources from some centuries of talking about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge BMK (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Okay, we really need to start actually performing the WP:BEFORE due diligence before nominating any more of User:Neelix's articles for AfD. The fact that there are ZERO "delete" !votes speaks volumes. Reasonable editors can differ whether the subject is better covered as part of the fireplace article or should have a stand-alone article, but this is a clearly notable topic with plenty of coverage in the pertinent literature per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most people have not indicated keep though? They have indicated merge. AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count again: there are more keeps than merges (7–6), with two expressing keep or merge. Given the split, however, WP:SNOW is not appropriate. That said, there is clearly no appetite for "delete". Before any more AfDs are filed for articles created by User:Neelix, I urge everyone to actually perform the duel diligence suggested by WP:BEFORE. Most of Neelix's articles are being preserved, and this is starting to smell very inappropriate. This is why AfD article stats are discussed during RfAs; it bears on the nominator's judgment and understanding of the notability and other suitability guidelines for stand-alone articles. No one should be nominating articles for deletion willy-nilly, and without a good-faith belief -- based on basic due diligence of the subject article -- that they do no satisfy the applicable guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW, is, as you say, obviously not appropriate. It is basically evenly split given some have recommended a keep/merge. I have not suggested deletion but merging. You have said that most of Neelix's articles nominated for deletion are being kept but I have seen several deleted already per WP:SNOW namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Week (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignite the Road to Justice AusLondonder (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of his stuff is going down, in fact the vast majority of stuff User_talk:Neelix/deletions/Archive_1 nominated for delete/merge etc is going down if you are keeping score. Then there are all the deletes happening without discussion. I personally merged at 14 of his non-notable stubs in one go yesterday. Kelly is acting very much AGF Legacypac Even my nom right above went merge.(talk) 04:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - note that a merge counts as a keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep I was inclined to say merge but surprised to find some sources about the subject independent of definitions. Jppcap (talk) 22:40, 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. Biblioworm 00:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Green[edit]

Claude Green (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:BIO1E, resting on one single news article for sourcing, of a person notable primarily for an allegation of contributory negligence by the police in his death. But for the life of me, I can't find any indication in a Google News search that the lawsuit filed in response ever actually went anywhere; even on the ACLU's website, the last "update" posted to his case is a 2006 denial of a motion to dismiss the suit, with nothing posted since then and no reliable source coverage locatable to verify anything more recent than that either. This just isn't enough notability to warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia — and because WP:BLP applies to all people named in an article, not just the subject, we have to give some thought to the reputational harm that can be caused to the defendant in the lawsuit as well: if we can't verify that Robert Bowman was ever actually found guilty of anything, then for WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:PERP reasons we shouldn't keep an article about the matter at all if it's sourced this poorly. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree completely with Bearcat's analysis. This person is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a criminal case with no lasting implications. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:07, 8 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 redirect to Washington International Trade Association. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Washington International Trade Foundation[edit]

Washington International Trade Foundation (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)

Reason: This article has several issues. First, it fails notablity. A search of news articles brings up a single passing mention, and I can't find any substantial overview of the organization independently of the WITA. Secondly, the article was written by a user:Wita4, which is probably WP:COI. Thirdly, while the source cited is a dead link, archive.org has the content here [1], which along with [2] shows that the entirety of the article is WP:COPYPASTE.Forbes72 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "WITF"? - hehe. Redirect Washington International Trade Association. BTW deadlink easily recoverable, and copypaste is not a sin per se because basic barebone facts are not copyrightabe. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Redirect to Washington International Trade Association. Not enough content for a stand-alone article. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 8 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GEOINT Data Fitness[edit]

GEOINT Data Fitness (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)

Appears to be original research. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Copy-paste from the lede paragraph of Physical fitness, with some words changed to make it look like a different topic is being discussed. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per QVVERTYVS - yep, nonsense. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 8 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 06:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tulane Green Wave football statistical leaders[edit]

Tulane Green Wave football statistical leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". It is, in fact, a member of a set of 53 analogous lists found here: Category:Lists of college football statistical leaders by team. The appropriateness of the inclusion of these lists on Wikipedia should be considered first at the class level. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is not a reason to delete this article. It provides: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Here, the lists are well-formulated, clean and concise, and the article includes sufficient explanatory text. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These lists are not trivial, meaningless information, nor indiscriminate lists. Any time a player breaks a school record or is climbing the leaderboard, AP stories and ESPN on-air recaps mention it. Wikipedia includes hundreds, if not thousands, of meaningful, non-trivial lists about sports like these, many of which don't have the written context of these. Jhn31 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aside from all the valid points above, I would like to note, especially before Matt Forte, the likes of Peggy Flournoy, Don Zimmerman, and Bill Banker were all highly notable for their statistical achievements listed here. Cake (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:38, 8 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 03:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Male hysteria[edit]

Male hysteria (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)

Short article, no references, not notable. Codeofdusk (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite. Notability is easily established; see, e.g., this book by an UIUC professor of intellectual history or this one. In short, whether male hysteria existed or not was the subject of a lively debate in nineteenth century psychiatry. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started to rewrite the article based on the sources that I've found. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although this article definitely has problems, and this diagnosis is obsolete, a Google Books search shows that the topic is notable. It is associated with 19th century French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot, who was a mentor to Sigmund Freud. It is better to keep, expand and reference the article, instead of deleting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to have some notability, there is a detailed female hysteria article as well. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In the article, None of mentioned sources talk about male hysteria. Only about male nervous illness, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JugniSQ (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As has been said above, the topic was a serious topic of intellectual debate that has been well-published in reliable sources. RailwayScientist (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Animated Animals Attack[edit]

When Animated Animals Attack (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)

Tagged for notability for nearly six years, and for good reason. An [3] internet search turns up only 520 results (which is very little for Google), and most of them are just Wikipedia mirrors. The only thing that would be considered RS (possibly) is a very brief mention on the site of an animated film festival that does not have a WP page. Fails WP:NFILMS. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 20:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. It's possible that there are offline sources. If so, the article can be recreated with better sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ESS Bilbao[edit]

ESS Bilbao (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 about a failed effort to attract European Spallation Source to Bilbao. The article is severely out of date (more than 6 years), and is completely unreferenced. I see no point in retaining the article. PKT(alk) 19:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The European Spallation Source is now under construction in Lund, Sweden. There is no encyclopedic value to retain an unreferenced article about a failed bid to have the project built in Bilbao. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 8 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Kryklia[edit]

Roman Kryklia (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 kickboxer does not meet WP:KICK. This was a contested PROD - apparently this is one of the top kickboxers in the world with lots of big fights in 2015 however, the fight record does not support that and the sources are poor. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. How can we keep this? Do all those matches need to be sourced or what? He already won Tatneft Cup, a tough competition and went on extra round against Jahfarr Wilnis, GLORY's number 2 challenger in the world. It was expected to sign for a better promotion. I can write his record through videos (Kunlun, SUPERKOMBAT after tonight, etc). What do you say? Certainly a future star since he knocked Hron out. Tomáš Hron being surely a top 25 (or top 20). Khbabez is also very good and holds titles. Lorenzo Fertita (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. If he meets any of those criteria, then you need to put that in the article, along with the reliable sources to support it. Being a "future star" falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Wikipedia is for those who are already notable, not those who may become notable. WP:TOOSOON is another criteria that may apply. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. He is not ranked by either CombatPress or Liverkick. As I commented above, he may become notable but he's not there yet. There is also no significant coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 18:55, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial Words[edit]

Spatial Words (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 makes no sense, even after copyediting. What are spatial words? Lfstevens (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources and can't find any sources that say what "spatial words" are. Probably doesn't pass GNG anyway. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Random assortment of concepts that are only vaguely connected, except in the original writer's mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems to fail WP:IINFO as a random collection of unrelated topics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (song)[edit]

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

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Redirected by another editor and reverted. Richhoncho (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Barely any content and there doesn't appear to be much coverage around that could be used to expand it. --Michig (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing for better improvement at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 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 redirect to 461 Ocean Boulevard. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainline Florida[edit]

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

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

A non notable album track / B-Side which has not been listed in any notable charts, not won any awards and not been recorded by multiple notable artists so fails WP:NSONGS and has no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Author has contested redirection to the album leaving deletion as the only remaining option. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainline Florida" was now massively improved by adding more to the writing and composition page. The intro was extended and verified. Also a both commercial and critical reception, consisting of chart positions, sales figures and critics quotes have been added. The vinyl B-side was added. This should lead to the revert of deleting the article. It is no longer allowed to be deleted. It should really stay on Wikipedia. --Matthiasberoli (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is nicely created and if Wikipedia wanted to be a repository of everything it would be great - but, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, it doesn't. The criteria are clear and the track remains non-notable per the Wikipedia definitions I cited. The new content doesn't change that - in fact, if anything, it exposes the fact that the criteria are not met. The reviews quoted are of the album on which it appeared which only strengthens the argument for redirection to the album article; the chart references are for a completely different song - this song does not appear in the cited charts. Nothing has demonstrated individual notability of this song and nothing in the article could not be incorporated into the parent article for the album, which is where is belongs. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Willie and the Hand Jive or 461 Ocean Boulevard. The chart listings seem to be for Willie and the Hand Jive; notability is not inherited, so that doesn't make this B-side notable. The brief mentions in three sources ([4], [5], [6] (p. 246)) do not, in my opinion, constitute significant coverage. I am not sure what the best redirect target is though. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as this seems best linked to the album, rather than an independently notable song article. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 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 redirect to Saturday Night Live#Broadcast . – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNL Vintage[edit]

SNL Vintage (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 air dates of SNL reruns, failing WP:NOT/WP:N. The episodes themselves are notable, not their second-airing information (even under a fancy new title like "Vintage!"). The original episodes are already listed at List of Saturday Night Live episodes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of Lost, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of CSI: Miami, etc. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Currently airing show on major network, but agreed the airdates/shows aired can likely be taken out unless they're of importance. We don't delete currently airing major network shows for the mere reason of being made up of reruns (listed efforts were killed eight years ago when out-of-control showcruft was controlled). Nate • (chatter) 04:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this is a show is just absurd. These are reruns, and there is no difference between this article and the 'airdates' article other than the fact these reruns have different branding. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's scheduled by NBC to fulfill a one-hour timeslot. Sometimes that's all we need. Worse comes to worse like I did for the little-known network Lifetime Real Women into a lower section on Lifetime (TV network), a merge to a section on Saturday Night Live#Broadcast with a basic infobox/summary would probably be for the best to retain this somewhere; the ratings numbers are only of interest to the ratings crufters and as I said, only important episode connections should be highlighted. Nate • (chatter) 07:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a one-hour timeslot on NBC does not a show make- it goes without saying that it's what airs that matters. These are reruns plain and simple, as reported by NBC to TV listings (see The Futon Critic / Zap2it). Wikipedia does not chronicle rerun material, in episode lists let alone in standalone articles. The secondary coverage required to pass WP:N is really about SNL; thus, I agree that a sentence or two about the airings can be merged to SNL#Broadcast. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Certainly getting a good deal of secondary source coverage about this obviously notable and ongoing television program. — Cirt (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obviously notable and ongoing television program is Saturday Night Live. Reruns airing and in what broadcast order is most certainly not notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge what is needed to be merged. I honestly do not see why this should get its own page; as the nominator says, this is just a list of reruns of episodes already listed at List of Saturday Night Live episodes. The lead of the article can easily be edited and merged onto either the List of SNL episodes page or the main SNL page. Prhdbt [talk] 02:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saturday Night Live#Broadcast where the reruns are already succinctly discussed. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. This "article" is no more than a statement of the fact that reruns exist, and a list of when they've (recently) aired. What would a "complete" article even look like? Discounting the overlapping or redundant content to existing SNL articles and lists, we're left with a list of dates of reruns better off left to SNL Wikia or other outlets. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Merge to List of Saturday Night Live episodes: Although they're reruns with 30 minutes cut each time, I seem to remember a a bit of coverage about this. The idea is, in theory, that there will be one episode from each season, so the selection might be separately notable — or might not. (Is there any substantial coverage after the original every-new-title-gets-routine-coverage burst in September 2014?) It sounds like a box set waiting to happen, doesn't it? Maybe merging it to become a separate section of List of Saturday Night Live episodes might be the best idea. --Closeapple (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listing rerun information is not appropriate at an 'episodes list' page; otherwise, every one would be filled with syndication cruft (imagine Seinfeld or Friends). As stated by some users above, I believe Saturday Night Live#Broadcast is the most appropriate place for your merger suggestion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Saturday Night Live#Broadcast If this isn't some type of spinoff of SNL and a glorified re-packaging of reruns, not necessary. Maybe the info is pertinent in some capacity. Jppcap (talk) 22:46, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago de Almeida Feijóo Pinto[edit]

Tiago de Almeida Feijóo Pinto (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)

Unable to locate any sources to establish notability for this art collector. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources demonstrating how this person meets WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 9 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Ltd.[edit]

Safari Ltd. (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)

Advertising None of the references appear to independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Notifying past user Mindy Dirt although it seems they're not noticeably active. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A rather non-notable entity. Wefihe (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York City transit fares[edit]

New York City transit fares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A lot of Original research and unsourced material in present in this article. Also appears to be against WP:NOTGUIDE. A summary of this should be included in the main articles in question. Mdann52 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is akin to sending MetroCard (New York City) and SmartLink (smart card) for deletion, too. It does not violate WP:NOTGUIDE. It is summarized in these respective articles, but having a centralized page for this is a better way to go. epic genius (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse my keep because, well, this is notable. Just because someone did not place secondary sources doesn't mean they don't exist, as WP:BEFORE. epic genius (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, no longer "speedy" due to the "speed" of this discussion. epic genius (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, per Epic Genius. A centralized page for the fares makes much more sense, and there's no OR in this article whatsoever. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not to be used to republish commercial information, and that is all this article consists of. I have been told by User:Epicgenius that there are no reliable secondary sources on this topic and that is also an indication that it should be deleted. --John (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John: That is not actually what I meant. I said that the article doesn't need secondary sources for the fares. However, it is very easy for me to find secondary sources for the fare histories. epic genius (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. It is hard to read this other than as what I said but ok. If there are secondary sources, now is the time to bring them in as otherwise I think the article will need to be deleted. If there are other articles in this condition, they will also need to be brought in line with our norms. --John (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is what I am working to do right now. epic genius (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. Many secondary sources exist about this topic. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Epic Genius and DanTD. There is no OR in the article. Vcohen (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A)This can and will overtime become severely outdated, B) We're not a guide - It all belongs on the travel operators website, –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are speaking about the first half of the article, right? Vcohen (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, this article is about historical and current fares. As current fares become historic, new fares become updated. In fact, all articles will become outdated over time. Second, there are a lot of transit operators represented here. WP:NOTGUIDE is when the article is named MTA fares or PATH fares. epic genius (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm well aware what the article is, We don't need an article on bus fares in the US or any country for that matter - There's nothing encyclopedic or even notable about it, NOTGUIDE is basically this entire article. –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IKON activity[edit]

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

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

There is already a page for this group here-> IKON (South Korean band). This seems to be a fans attempt to take things that were not allowed on the groups main page and create a separate page where they could have those things. Some of the problems with this page is poor sourcing, lots of unimportant information like a chart of every music music show appearance for the group, and repeating information from the main page just this time in chart form. Peachywink (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - perfect example of WP:FANCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to iKON (South Korean band). Per WP:LISTN, I don't think that this list serves any recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes. The important information can be included in the main article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:58, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super Quiz[edit]

Super Quiz (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 has been unreferenced for many years. I found many items from the quiz published in newspapers, but was only able to find one book which talked briefly about it. Perhaps someone else will know where to look to find information about this quiz, but if not it may be non-notable. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see no obviously better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:22, 7 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Korpela[edit]

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

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

No indication that Korpela meets our standards of notability. The article was deleted back in 2008 for the same reason, but no significant coverage has since been provided. Google News finds a few pieces by Korpela, but nothing that covers him in any detail. This old revision offers some additional sources, but still nothing significant. Huon (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, the deletion rationale isn't quite accurate, because there is a 2013 news article in the Tucson Weekly which is, at least, about Korpela. But, erm, that's it! I can't see any other news coverage significantly about him online. His roles, though numerous, seem to be fairly minor in the grand scale of things. Still fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Do not delete Meets Notability Guidelines. It was decided before that the profile should not deleted because this individual was a part of very famous wrestling events and shows for many years. Since then he has become even more notable. This page needs to be updated to reflect his current TV job http://www.wgal.com/tv/news-team/34422916 And his current TV work - http://www.wgal.com/news/lancaster-powerlifter-world-record-holder-after-fighting-for-his-life/36001794 http://www.wgal.com/news/shooting-kills-1-in-york/34991632 http://www.wgal.com/news/suspects-wanted-in-york-county-police-officer-dragging/36308988 http://www.wgal.com/news/teenage-boy-faces-attempted-homicide-charge-after-stabbing-girl-police-say/35068640 http://www.wgal.com/news/couples-coasttocoast-journey-could-be-recordsetting/35540314 He was a commentator on these worldwide WWE shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuklvMzKkVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KevMCPKy3oY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESGfKTzZLBo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R73CtsL2rYw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkaI2tttzyA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUzBFWW388Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQvlQQqaojw

Jack Korpela Commentary on popular WWE NXT show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyUiRhkpthM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osgO957i1kk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1xnMLazYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF-cLkrPo3M

Jack Korpela on Friday Night Smackdown, Worldwide show http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xj8jky_friday-night-smackdown-jack-korpela-interviews-aj_sport

Jack Korpela mentioned in all these articles http://insidepulse.com/2015/04/16/throwback-thursday-tough-enough-throwback-josh-mathews/

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2014/0626/577416/edge-praises-new-nxt-star/

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2013/0223/560612/backstage-fallout-from-smackdown/

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2012/1120/558105/chris-jericho/

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2011/0210/536380/vince-mcmahon/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/818767-wwe-nxt-5-sutiable-replacements-for-todd-grisham-on-commentary

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wadekellerdotcom/49006.shtml

Jack Korpela on the WWE Website

http://www.wwe.com/photos/superstars/jack-korpela

Topps Trading Card of Jack Korpela

https://www.google.com/search?q=jack+korpela&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=jack+korpela+top+cards&tbm=shop&spd=15145860151690426783 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragbike (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Others who held Korpel's role for shorter periods of time are featured on Wikipedia with no issues. Like this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Romero

A detractor appears to be stalking this page with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragbike (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - when the only defenses to avoid deletion are strings of YouTube links and personal attacks, then we are in trouble. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete -That "string of Youtube links" serves as evidence that this individual was a big part of world famous programming seen in over 167 countries. He is also one of the very few featured on the WWE website, one of the world's largest entertainment companies. I did not see a personal attack, only stating what I know to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragbike (talk • contribs) 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Where is the argument to overturn the decision Wikipedia made to keep the page a few years ago? The precedent was established by the experts. Since then Korpela has become more notable. His Twitter account is over 15K followers. He is still on TV. I'm not sure I see the logic here. We do know that at least one individual has threatened to make a movement to take the page down if he was not paid by Korpela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:100:D11:80B6:6671:E40A:3C20 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - despite the template at the article's talk page there was no decision to keep the page a few years ago. You can read the past discussions via the links above. The article was deleted - and where are the arguments to overturn that precedent established by the experts? Regarding the claims that people have threatened Korpela to "make a movement" if they're not paid, I'd like to see some evidence. Huon (talk) 21:01, 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 no consensus. With only 4 participants, there doesn't seem to be enough to determine a consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) ansh666 11:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Goodwin[edit]

Christie Goodwin (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)

Since my last (withdrawn) nomination years ago, all the changes have been is what this subject has done lately rather than explain why she is notable in any depth and the references provided in the last nomination does not provide what it really is as all it provides is credit to work as I must assume that it photo gallery of the photographer's work just like they do at Amateur Photographer or every photography magazine out there.

The references given in this page; all it does is provide a credit to the photographer plainly rather than talk more about the photographer like so many articles about photographers does. As with WP:COI editor, since the last nomination, all he did since then is lurk behind an IP address, thinking that nobody is going to catch him editing.

So from the last nomination, have my opinion changed? No. Also, aside all the notable artists this photographer has worked in, there is nothing in this page to hint notability other than a list of works with famous artists which is what social media does, something Wikipedia is not. I personally think however notable or not it is best if this article is deleted and started afresh unless this article can be edited to a satisfactory level per notability guidelines because in this current state, I don't see it passing any of WP:ARTIST. Donnie Park (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - The articles in the external links seem like they would be grounds for notability, though they really should be online citations, and I am not entirely sold on the list heavy nature of the article. Still, with work it could be better and I'm not seeing great grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless something is done which the editors had been given 6 years to do, I will have to stand by my decision. I wish I had the time to do something with it but I don't otherwise I think it is best deleted and started afresh without the blog nature of this article. As with the list, who added them in? Her partner as he admitted it in the last nomination and what did he do since then, hid behind an IP address thinking that nobody is going to detect him. Donnie Park (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replying to the claim above that I am hiding behind an IP. Not hiding behind anything. At all. Still here. Any suggestions are welcome. I'm obviously pretty bad at doing this page, so why not help in stead? Patrick Cusse — 94.12.69.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• The question is since the first nomination, what have you done in your edits other than namedropping famous musicians into the list of who your partner has worked with when you could had explain what is special about her work compared to famous concert photographers such as Pennie Smith, Mick Rock and Anton Corbijn? All I see her in the way of this edit is that she is just like every run-of-the-mill working photographers, who get their Wikipedia articles successfully nominated for deletion.

Also, if you claim to be not hiding; since then why did you abandon your user account (Patrickcusse SPA) following the last nomination as this gives an impression that you are trying to hide behind your edits in the hope that nobody will find out and I did unintentionally only because I began to very recently use the watchlist regularly which raised alarm because I saw no improvement through those years as this article is becoming more like an over-glorified blog than a encyclopedia article when it should be.

The question to ask of your partner's notability is what is special about her other than that she is your partner, why should she be special enough to have a Wikipedia page compared to so many similar photographers because anybody with a press pass can work with somebody famous. I don't feel that I am seeing any, neither have I see any of that evidence in that years since the first deletion and what are those references you gave, its just nothing without context and any photographers can get their work published in magazines nowadays. As with editing, there are tutorial out there to help you. Donnie Park (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, in the early stages there was criticism on the page, I changed it according to the wishes of editors, and the criticism stopped. Now it's back. I just continued as I did then, assuming it was ok. As for not using the ID to make the changes, wasn't aware that I had to, and back then it was a different email address, which I can no longer access, so I can't retrieve the password. I don't get the remark about the press pass, a press pass will not get you to work with somebody famous. The photographers you mention are famous, yes, completely. Christie is hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums, and some of the interviews mentioned in the article clearly illustrate that. It should make no difference if I'm her partner, her neighbour, or a total stranger. But points taken, all of them. Wouldn't it be easier then to just delete it and start again from scratch? (Patrick Cusse) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.69.219 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums"... So does roadies, backing musicians, tour bus drivers and road managers, your claim does not scream notability to me, if it does why don't they all get Wikipedia articles as well. I don't see any lasting impact she did for the artists, thats all. I think its best if this decision is left to others to decide, also WP:NOTPROMOTION applies. Donnie Park (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question to me seems to be: how do you define notability? Wikipedia is information. You look at entries for actors, musicians etc, most just list personal life, career, filmography or discography. Not necessarily how good or bad they are. Just a list of data. So, when is a photographer notable? The criticism here seems to be that working on big productions for contemporary artists is not it. So when is an actor notable? Or a director? Or anybody else in the creative industry? Donnie seems to have decided that the photographer should not get a page because the road or the road manager does not. While I actually believe many tour managers do merit a factual wikipedia page of all the tours they've run, it also implies that anybody can take a photo and press a button and that artists will hire just anyone with a camera (or a tool belt in the case of a roadie) to do that job. PCusse (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a huge, huge problem. Even looking up artists famous in their field, the article will be laughingly small. The true issue here really has to do with too little knowledge about the art world itself. Well, that and the smugness that goes along with it. What it comes down to is that the majority of individuals here on Wikipedia have little to zero interest in the art world, therefore, the whole art world itself is considered not notable. With the possible exception of sci-fi and video games. (Oddly enough, those are areas that tend to be shunned by the art world!) If you showed up to create an user identity because you enjoy writing and are good at it AND just wanted to help Wikipedia (like I myself intended to do) well, then I must warn you that at this time Wikipedia has zero interest in wanting, attracting, or keeping writers. However, here is the one bright spot in all of this, a biography that is not on Wikipedia cannot be decimated by Wikipedia. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, though Goodwin takes photos of well-known celebrities the coverage about her is minimal. For example she's asked for her opinion in a news article in The Independent. She has featured in the March 2015 edition of Practical Photography, but in what capacity I'm unsure. Quite clearly her photographs are used online and she is duly credited as the photographer. Maybe she is on the cusp of notability, but simply being a photographer does not take you over the WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE threshold on its own. If she wins an award, or has an in-depth article written about her in the future, then maybe things wil change. Sionk (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, coverage about her is not minimal. There are several linked right there in the article. The interview with Larry LeBlanc for one. Inside the entertainment industry he's the one who interviews everybody who is "notable". Several magazines (Digital Photographer, Practical Photography, Eos...) have interviewed Christie Goodwin about her work. When in addition to several photography magazines who feature her over several pages, Q Magazine does the same, would that not imply notability? How many magazines do you need? You mention the Practical Photography article and hasten to add "in what capacity I'm unsure", jumping to a conclusion. So, the article is not available online, so that implies the writer is lying? Well, that specific article is four pages about Christie Goodwin's work and technique. Happy to email you a pdf. PCusse (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PCusse I don't know there have been any evidence of feature articles but from the edits, it does not assert WP:notability in any shape or form, the point of this deletion, aside the excessive namedropping that does not support the article well. Plus all photography magazines does is provide a gallery of photographer's work and barely any coverages about them, just their work, which means that anybody who gets two magazine spreads at Amateur Photographer should get a Wikipedia page because it seems like it. If you don't agree, strip the list namedropping nature away from your article and this is what the article looks like...

Christie Goodwin (born 27 July 1962) is an English art photographer who specialises in music photography.

Christie Goodwin received her BA (hons) in Art Photography from the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp in 1986 and worked freelance as a photojournalist for press agencies. In 2005 she moved from Belgium to London and made the move to music photography. She is mainly commissioned for album photography, DVD photography and official tour photography.

The state of this comes off as an article about somebody who is shoot at concerts, hence my point - worse is there are no sources for it to support them and this makes her look like another generic music photographer and all the sources do is provide credits, nothing else.

"The photographers you mention are famous...Christie is hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums" - the question now is, never mind the famous clients, what makes her as special to/as other famous concert photographers especially those I mentioned above?

"Wikipedia is information" - you seriously need to take a look at WP:PLUG because your partner's page look like a Wikipedia page disguised as a MySpace/Facebook like/Linkedin page.

Last of all, have you looked at the links provided at the reasons for nomination? I suggest you do so as opposed to protesting. Lastly before you can protest any further, I invite you to compare your CG's article to another photographer who I wrote about 5 years ago and you will know why your's is a sitting duck for deletion, which makes me think why did I bother to withdraw my nomination 6 years ago, because nothing has changed. Unless you can answer these, I do not want to hear anymore protesting and read the guidelines before you doing anything. Donnie Park (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie, you have made up your mind. Any arguments are rebuked with "I do not want to hear anymore protesting". It is a challenge to rewrite an article when it already has a big stamp on top saying it's worthless, and when arguments are labeled protests. You have a low opinion of somebody who shoots concerts, and you have made up your mind that she is a generic music photographer. In saying that you still implies that the people who hire her will just hire any generic photographer. Fair enough, you can think that. You could just offer to help rewrite it. Or just go ahead and delete it. I'm sure some day somebody will do a better job at writing this wikipedia page.PCusse (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidently, yesterday I was curious about a New York photographer I am familiar with and I wondered whether there was enough material to create a Wikipedia article about him. There were picture credits online in abundance, and several recent online articles about a 2015 project of his. There were several blog posts writing his praise. I decided, lacking any verifiable biographical info I wouldn't go ahead with the article.

Similarly with Goodwin there seems to be a bit of blog interest (the Larry LeBlanc piece appears to be on an industry listings website) and plenty of her credited photographs used by music magazines and music websites. Based on the Wikipedia article being sourced entirely to photo credits and there apparently being no verifiable biographical information available (not even on her website), I fall on the side of "Weak delete" (as I said above). On top of all that, the evident conflict of interest of the author suggests the article is being written prematurely for the wrong reasons.

With current, 21st century people, you would expect to find at least one article available about them online. The Hans G. Lehmann article written by Donnie Park at least has one very lengthy newspaper article which is entirely about him (the other sourcing is weak but his career seems largely pre-internet).

I'm not saying anything further on the subject, but wish Goodwin well with her career. IMO other input should be invited here, rather than two people talking it to death. Sionk (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA Mr. PCusse, where does the low opinion of concert photographers come from? I have a friend who works as one full time. At the end of the day, its either me who did this or somebody else and after six years, somebody had to nominate this. Just like Sionk said, anybody active in the 21st century can be achieved easily providing they meets the guideline, as for saving this article, can't you just get anybody about like your friend years ago. At the end of the day, you're just making excuses, if it gets deleted, later on, there is always WP:deletion review, so in that case, its best left with you to sort it out yourself because I am becoming tired of this argument when I already missed my Wiki article deadline months ago and me to rewrite, if only I had the time plus I got a list of 100 or so articles to do before my planned retirement from Wikipedia, which is why I don't take requests at all and most people would write articles based on their hobbies and interests and last of all still, where's your friend? Donnie Park (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Connolly (musician)[edit]

Dan Connolly (musician) (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)

Dubious notability musician. Article was created in 2009 and content has not been significantly aletered since. It was speedied on 5 February 2009‎ but the tag was removed the following day by another editor who added an external link (which is now dead). Neither this editor nor the creator has edited since. The article makes no claim to notability; the nearest it comes is saying that Connolly played with "the legendary violinist Geoffrey Castle", so legendary that he is a red link. Apart from one CD release in February 2009, but with no evidence of how successful this was, there is nothing to show any continuing notable career. The suspicion is that this article was created in an attempt to prmote the CD, an idea that is not dismissed by the originator's name, Barokas PR. Emeraude (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - quick search didn't reveal any additional sources that would establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not seeing anything better. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 9 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konstant Infosolutions[edit]

Konstant Infosolutions (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:WEB and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• References and citations describes the evidence. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishjain03 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft & userfy later if needed as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 1 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erkin Osmanli[edit]

Erkin Osmanli (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:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:21, 6 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£} 09:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be SPA-created fanpage. Sources are all YouTube vids and other web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 9 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Herewini[edit]

Kevin Herewini (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 Warrant Officer Class One. Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. But query, at what level are RSMs/Sergeant Majors notable? Only at army level? Corps? Division? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILPEOPLE has guidelines. For someone of this rank, being awarded something like the Victoria Cross would qualify them. clpo13_(talk) 00:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Sergeant Major of the Army is considered notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILPEOPLE. Herewini doesn't appear to have satisfied any of the criteria. He's a Member of the Order of the British Empire, but that's about it. clpo13_(talk) 00:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and comments listed above. EricSerge (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither warrant officers nor MBEs have any inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER I'm afraid. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:04, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2-way iSMS[edit]

2-way iSMS (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)

SMS product from a Finnish company (Bookit), notability not established. Strongly suspect this article has been created by someone who works for the company. Among other evidence, the company has copied this article to their own website. They have plugged in a pile of references, but none of them seem to be high quality. SJK (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I'm not seeing much better. SwisterTwister talk 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. References are not quality, and quantity is meaningless. We aren't a directory for every business that has several minor listings, just the truly notable ones. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Thakur[edit]

Joginder Thakur (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 came to my attention after a batch of edits by User:Adv.joginderthakur. It survived a previous AfD as "no consensus". Reviewing its text, it has always been effectively autobiographical ("Students of Jammu and Kashmir showed faith in me when they elected me as National Delegate") and is remorselessly detailed (training camps attended, blood donor records). The best reference concerns the subject presenting a memorandum to a committee, the remainder are passing mentions as a vice-president of the Chenab Valley People's Association. These do not look sufficient to establish encyclopaedic notability, nor are my searches locating anything better. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  15:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  15:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiola Aburto[edit]

Fabiola Aburto (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, WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 07:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 7 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Majesty International 2015[edit]

Miss Majesty International 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources conform WP:RS. Non-notable year version of a pageant that is deemed not notable itself (= no article present) The Banner talk 07:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails EVENT & GNG agreed. Legacypac (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology[edit]

Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology (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. it appears to have a lot of sources but everything listed (And everything I've found) is psychology or university websites connected with this event. it gets very little third party coverage, only 2 gnews hits LibStar (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No secondary sources (all just publications of the Symposium itself). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:12, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnus Mero Kura[edit]

Sunnus Mero Kura (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)

Unaired TV talk show lacking references reddogsix (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article has been CSD tagged twice (once removed by Bishworaj Poudel, the article creator), PROD'ed and deleted once but Bishworaj Poudel recreated it. He is not only the author but also is the creator of this show as well as Bishworaj Poudel, an autobiography that has been deleted twice. I'm skeptical of a TV show created by an 18 year old that will be broadcast on "various channels" but has no actual episodes produced yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have CSD'd the article. It is a copy of text from http://motivationalgyan.com/satyamev-jayate-aamir-khan/. reddogsix (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And that website took its content from Satyamev Jayate (TV series). So, it ends up that a website took content from Wikipedia and then a Wikipedian editor took the website content and used it on a different article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, got it. I removed the CSD. reddogsix (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is still not valid to copy entire paragraphs from another Wikipedia article and use it in a different article without providing attribution. And the chances that Sunnus Mero Kura, as a TV show, would duplicate the content and approach of Satyamev Jayate is remote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clear unwarranted self promotion. SPA created ands full of redlinks Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rankin family of Geelong[edit]

Rankin family of Geelong (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 a family in any significant sources; not seeing the value of having a family article when all its members have their own articles, and the family article doesn't contain anything that couldn't be in those. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

· Keep - But happy to prune it back to a few paragraphs. You have a good point in that there is duplication with the six or so Rankins, who have their own pages. Much of the material could be relocated to these seperate article; however, it would still be useful to have a separate page that shows the links between them and very succinctly mentions the family's connection to the Geelong district. MPCR (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - article should be condensed. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think. Seems to me like the family as a whole does have significant coverage in reliable sources, though the article currently reads a bit too much like a family history and not enough like an encyclopedia article. If the family has got significant coverage then I see nothing wrong with summarising the biographies of the notable characters into the 'parent' family article. See for example Category:Sports families, of which Ablett family springs to mind in this particular case. Also Harvey brothers is a great example of this type of article and is excellent quality. Jenks24 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely support an article on the Ablett family, who are actually notable as a whole as well as individually. But these people seem like a random bunch that we happen to have articles on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at this again, I'd probably say I'm a weak keep. Few of the sources, except a few newspaper articles, appear to be entirely about the family, but where do we draw the line of "significant coverage"? I can certainly see the point of view of The Drover's Wife and Frickeg, but I think that the newspaper articles and the book mentions that stretch several pages (ignoring the self-published family history) together amounts to significant coverage. I also like the work that has been done on the article in the interim, it has a much better tone and clearer scope. Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These people are all notable individually, but I'm not seeing the coverage of them as a family. A substantial portion of the article is essentially duplication of information that belongs on each individual page. Although the sources are difficult to examine as they're mostly offline, from what I can tell there is precisely one source dealing with them as a family, which appears to be an article in an obscure local journal by a member of the Rankin family!! The fact that a family has multiple notable individuals does not lead to notability; there has to be coverage of the family itself. For example, in Jenks24's Ablett family example above, there are at least four sources cited dealing with the family and not just the various individuals. (Harvey brothers I'm less convinced about, but I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough in the area to pursue deleting a GA.) In short, the family as distinct from the individuals does not come close to meeting WP:GNG. Some of the information could be merged back into individual articles. Frickeg (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has now been condensed. I think there is strong interest in them as a family group - particularly Edwin, Cliff and Bert - and appreciate the suggestion of including them in the sporting families category. MPCR (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to clarify a comment, which has been made, please note that most of the sources are actually available online (i.e. 18 of 27 references). The newspaper reports and sports magazine articles - quite often covering the family rather than individual members - are all available online through the NLA Trove collection of digitalized journals. In any case, hopefully the significant changes made to the article, taking on board everyone’s comments, should mean that the retention of the article in its present form will suit most people. Thanks again for everyone’s comments - this has been a useful experience for me as a new contributor.MPCR (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The main issue raised in arguments for deletion seems to be that while the individuals are all notable and have their own entries, the family is not. The family's notability and the significance of the father-son and sibling-to-sibling football records was certainly not evident in the first draft, but I believe that the condensing of the text and revisions have addressed this issue. The family's significance in the Geelong district is discussed in a separate chapter (pp. 81-94) in Three William McDonalds and is also noted (albeit usually in passing) in a number of newspapers and journals. The significance of the father-son career-gap record (which still stands as the AFL record) and the significance of the records set by Cliff and Bert Rankin as two brothers (i.e. first brothers to be both captain and vice-captain in a team and first brothers to be selected in the same Victorian team) are also noted in many of the newspaper articles and sporting magazines, which have been cited. These aren't individual achievements and, I think, have to be considered through a family lens, just like many of the other articles in the 'sporting families' category. Similarly, the issue of the controversy in 1923 of the dropping of Bert Rankin and his brother refusing to take the field in support of him, is also a family issue, in my view, and certainly features heavily in newspaper reports at the time and even resulted in a league investigation.MPCR (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck !vote - you cannot !vote twice. Frickeg (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Morillo[edit]

Lucy Morillo (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)

Simply nothing convincingly enough to suggest better notability and improvement (not even enough for better local notability like Amigos For Kids which I improved) with the best being found this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

URBR[edit]

URBR (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)

Clear and cut case of no better notability and improvement and I found nothing better than the usual music websites and their social media hasn't been updated since 2013 with their website also closed thus suggesting this no longer exists...as well this being speedy and PROD material. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's as little content in the article as there is punctuation in the nomination. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 07:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - self-published sources, non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I didn't find any sources that could be used to improve the article. I don't really think it's speedy material (if it was, why bring it to AfD?), but then I don't really know what "case of no better notability and improvement" means. Sources, if they exist, are likely to exist in Brazillian media, but I didn't find much from a Portuguese Google search either. --Michig (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not because there is no English source that there is source. (My Portugese is not that good ;)) warpozio (talk) 16:23, 9 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Via[edit]

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

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

There's simply nothing obvious at all to suggest better notability and improvement with my searches finding only this and it also seems her website is now closed with no further obvious recent activity (frankly it seems she's mainly settled and had a family). Frankly, this also hasn't changed since in recent years and not overall as well since starting in October 2004. Pinging Derek R Bullamore, MelanieN, WJetChao and Monni95. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - fails WP:V Monni (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Crafts[edit]

Crown Crafts (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)

Obvious case of no better notability and improvement with the best my searches finding this, this, this and this and this current version is even speedy and PROD material. Pinging Whpq, Vegaswikian, Rich Farmbrough and author Zanimum. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - no sources, self promotion article. non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources fairly easy to find. Six added so far. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 3 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petrol Mobile[edit]

Petrol Mobile (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 MVNO does not provide service anymore << VelkovJR >> (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found nothing obvious and maybe Wikimandia can search as well. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 3 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 03:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of pharmacies[edit]

List of pharmacies (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 list is indiscriminate collection of information; with no end to addition. We cannot convert Wikipedia to Yellow Pages. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:LISTPURP.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep likely as this article serves its exact purpose as any other subject. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Pugh[edit]

Emmett Pugh (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:BLP, resting entirely on a single namecheck of his existence in a news blurb about the election of his successor rather than any actual coverage of him, of a person notable only as the mayor of a small town with a population of just 17K. And furthermore, the entire article quite literally consists of a single sentence asserting his existence, and contains no other content of substance. This is not adequate to satisfy WP:NPOL #3 — a mayor has to serve in a city considerably larger than this, or be well-sourced and substantive enough to satisfy WP:GNG, to become eligible for an article on here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Brien (mayor)[edit]

Bill O'Brien (mayor) (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)