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 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theraflux Medical[edit]

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

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

As best, this is a clear case of too soon - a medical devices company that doesn't yet actually sell any medical devices. It also looks like the company trying to promote itself. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails general notability. All hits seem to be directory or profile listings. I might have even speedy deleted it as it's claim of significance is tenuous at best.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 02:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Hua[edit]

Zhu Hua (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 secondary source reference for a living person, seems like a poorly-written promotional piece. Probably fails WP:NACADEMICS since I don't see how she has made a significant contribution to her field of research, nor do I see any notable university position or membership aside from unsourced claims of "first Chinese-born woman linguist to be made a full professor in a British university." or "first doctoral student of the late Professor Qian Yuan （钱瑗）, the daughter of the well known Chinese scholars and writers Qian Zhongshu （钱锺书）and Yang Jiang （杨绛）" (notice Qian Yuan doesn't have a page). Plus, virtually an orphan (only 2 links, one of which is for another person of the same name and the second is just "List of Birkbeck, University of London people". and the only category is "Living people". Timmyshin (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - highly cited linguist, visiting professor at universities in China, Australia, Kazakhstan; easily meets WP:ACADEMIC; Z+Hua+linguistics h-index of 34 45 —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please define "easily". WP:ACADEMICS: "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1... Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose." "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." Timmyshin (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what criteria you're looking at - WP:NACADEMICS is the specific guideline for notability of academics. She meets the very first criteria (which is explained down the page). She has 7k-10k citations. If there is a guideline somewhere that says linguists are so over-cited that they must meet other criteria, please tell us where we can find that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Her Google scholar profile needs better editing as many of the papers listed there appear to be by other people with similar names. In particular the h-index of 45 listed there appears to be completely bogus. But it shows enough highly cited publications that are actually in linguistics (citation counts 217, 187, 162, 73, ...) for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs improvement but seems to be notable to me. AusLondonder (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Distinction Awards[edit]

Women of Distinction Awards (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, as written, seems to be about the local version of this award in Vancouver. Neelix seems to have written it as part of his Tara Teng universe of articles because she was apparently nominated for one. But it also mentions a Washington, DC version, not sure if this is national. Should any of this be merged into YWCA? I think it should just be deleted. Kelly ^hi! 22:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Agree this should be merged with YWCA. —cg6237 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge to YWCA. Kelly has nominated some real junk tonight. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These awards have been presented for decades and a Gnews search reveals that are independently notable of the organization that grants them. See for example this McGill Reporter story, or this one from the other side of the country. I also wonder if those in favour of merging to YWCA have actually taken a look at the proposed merge target. We don't have an article on YWCA Canada, so this would have the effect of burying content on a notable award for Canadian women in the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Women of Distiction Awards are YWCA system wide it seems, but a random list of recipients in various places is pretty useless. Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the above. BMK (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment found an amazing 38 Redirects to this article from Women of Distinction Award to The Young Womens Christian Association Women of Distinction Awards. [1] all created together by Neelix Perhaps delete them with the article. Legacypac (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If this article gets deleted, the redirects may be deleted under WP:G8. sst✈^discuss 09:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable award. When completed article will be too large to merge to YWCA and may even need to be split. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Merge to YWCA: collection of locally-based awards, main references are to, as Legacypac notes, random recipients in various places. Not the worst of this lot but a one-sentence reference in the YWCA article would cover it just as well. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Solution Women of Distinction TM is a program is a long time local branch YWCA Canada [[2]] annual award and fundraiser that was adopted in the USA (national level) in 2012 [3] I've improved the YWCA article [4] The Nom'd page should be DELETED as not the right name. All the REDIRECTS should be DELETED as corruptions of a trademarked name except Women of Distinction which I have retargeted to YWCA. I used nothing from the target, so it is not a merger. There is no value in trying to build a list of recipients of a bunch of local awards - our guidelines specifically say something about winning a local award is not notable. If one of the winners happens to be otherwise notable, then by all means add the WOD award to her BLP. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand to be more about the awards program and maybe move the list elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aside from the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, this is a reasonable sub article for the YWCA and the award has easily enough merits on WP:SIGCOV alone. As for the merge, I haven't seen any real policy based arguments why it should be merged. Mkdw^talk 19:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No please read my comments. It's a thing in Canadian YCWA's, and once three years back in the USA. There was not even a country section in YWCA for Canada until I added it yesterday and no article about YWCA Canada, so why propose a daughter article. Please look at what I did in YWCA and reevaluate. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Anti-Human Trafficking Committee[edit]

London Anti-Human Trafficking Committee (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)

Local charitable organization that fails notability requirements of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge – not supported in depth by any reliable sources, except for local news sources and sources related to the subject. All of the reliable sources mention the subject in passing. epic genius (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Maybe this could be merged to Human trafficking in Canada? I'm not entirely sure what would be merged there, though. There isn't a whole lot of meat here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They're a local organisation who staged one rally, ran two local events, and staged a local amateur version of the author's favourite play. This could have been speedied: every short-lived local activist group ever would pass notability criteria if it were this broad. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now all in all as there's not much for a better article aside from the current somewhat amount of sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I guess there isn't anything to merge, and it doesn't look like there's any coverage outside of community newsletters. I agree that local organizations this marginal don't satisfy WP:ORG. Otherwise, if I became friends with a local reporter, our book club might become notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Human trafficking in Canada. Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Childhope Asia Philippines[edit]

Childhope Asia Philippines (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 charitable organization, fails WP:NORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While this is a worthy cause, as my domestic partner tells me, it is not notable. The only reliable source appears to be a dead link. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know if you can call these reliable sources, 1 2 3 4 5.--RioHondo (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the links above show something but without any more obvious signs, there's nothing to suggest a better article and this current version would need it. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 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 speedy deleted as an A7 by Y (talk · contribs). -- Euryalus (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Swezzle[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This artist has released 8 albums, and that is hundreds of songs. He is notable and I contest this. --Many-Kaarten (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He also presents hundreds of results on Google. --Many-Kaarten (talk) 21:48, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Servants Anonymous Society[edit]

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

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

Local charitable organization that fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not sure what the nominator's looking at: a Gnews search for the term definitely meets WP:ORG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why you have confused Ghits with actual sources, or why you think "because I said so" constitutes actual evidence. --Calton | Talk 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors should note that this is part of 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) 07:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that ... that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive.

So when you're finished poisoning the well, perhaps you could actually address the actual issues? --Calton | Talk 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should strike your bad-faith comments, User:Shawn in Montreal. So far, several articles created by Neelix have been deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure; I forgot about this one. I'd already apologized to Kelly at the ANI. I still think he was a too broad with these Neelix Afds but I'm sure a good many of them will pass. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable, well referenced; Tara Teng doesn't appear to be inappropriately shoehorned in, which I understand to be one of the possible concerns.-- Elmidae 08:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably the actual concern -- Shawn in Montreal's bad-faith narrative notwithstanding -- has nothing to do with Tara Teng? --Calton | Talk 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Elmidae, move your eyes on over to the infobox and photo. Who's that in the image? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see any sources outside of Alberta that would support notability for a local org. Appears part of the walled garden of Tara worship. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't need to be "outside of Alberta" — Alberta is a huge Canadian province. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 20:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – not supported by any reliable sources, except for local news sources and sources related to the subject. Seems to be a puffery article for a topic related to Tara Teng. epic genius (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are 1.1 million people in Calgary, AB — we're not talking about coverage in the Cricketsville Tiddler... Carrite (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a great title for a newspaper, Carrite! :) AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Let's just strip aside the question of who wrote this piece and who is a leading member of this organization and take a neutral, honest look at whether it passes GNG as a organization covered substantially by multiple pieces of independently-published coverage in sources of presumed reliability, shall we? (1) THIS counts as one towards GNG, "Servants Anonymous Society of Calgary seeks help to salvage flooded Christmas of vulnerable women, kids," in the Calgary Sun, Dec. 2014. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention in THIS from the site of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary. Not substantial enough to count to GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, passing mention only in THIS from the Cloverdale Reporter. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere passing mention once more in THIS piece from The Star on hearings on anti-prostitution legislation. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that THIS listing on a website of Ottawa University counts as (2) towards GNG, being independently published, substantial, and of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A listing in the Calgary Street Survival Guide for 2010 HERE is borderline as (3). That's enough to get me over the top for the "multiple" requirement. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Based on the above, it appears that this organization (barely) meets GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia. In a close call, I will always favor inclusionism over deletionism, particularly when a piece is part of a set of more or less retaliatory nominations. Honest people may differ about whether GNG is fulfilled here. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It is a fairly close call, despite the aggressive bad-faith personal attack by another editor on the nom above. The organisation has received some media attention, but not, in many cases, significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Unfortunately I'm just not seeing WP:ORG here. Even in local papers it mostly seems to be brief mentions, and most of the other sources are primary or otherwise not independent of the source (partners and press releases, for example). The only real sources I've seen so far are Calgary Sun, and another source I haven't seen linked, a local magazine cited below but behind a paywall, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Home for mary magdalene: A christian ministry to juvenile prostitutes expands (servants anonymous society of calgary works with prostitutes under 18 years of age)". Western Report. 9 (32). 1 August 1994.

• Keep only if better coverage can be found but if not delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Brief mentions and four events that got one write-up in the local paper doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:40, 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 speedy delete under wp:a7 -- Y not? 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Swezzle[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and contest this. DJ Swezzle has released many albums and hundreds of songs. --Many-Kaarten (talk) 10:36, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot Legal Society[edit]

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

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

Local charitable organization that fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This passes WP:ORG. Looks like we have an article about one of their projects, but it should probably be merged/redirected into this article, judging by the sources available for each. Pivot looks to take a number of regionally and sometimes nationally significant cases, issues statements that get picked up by the press, and seems to be consulted pretty often about various human rights legal issues. As for sources: Chapter-length legal case study about the organization, The Nation, Global News, Vancouver Courier, Global News, The Province, CBC, The Georgia Straight, Olympic Industry Resistance (book), Selling Sex (book), Huffington Post, Huffington Post, A Thousand Dreams: Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and the Fight for Its Future (book), Canada, Abusing the User (Human Rights Watch report), The Tyee. Also found dozens of links to lesser coverage of their cases, statements on legal issues, quick quotes (a little more than a "brief mention", but not worth including here, I don't think). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While complaining about Neelix creating a bunch of clean-up work for others in the community, your rapid fire deletion nominations (dozens made within a few minutes of each other that clearly did not follow WP:BEFORE) likewise puts a burden on others (it takes time to look for sources). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites. While not all legal societies are notable, this one appears to be so, based on good sources to prove notability. Contra Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_Aid_Society_of_Orange_County. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cleanly passes WP:SIGCOV. Another AFD whereby it may have been better for the nominator to do their due diligence with a WP:BEFORE search. Mkdw^talk 19:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and rename to Cheryl Perera. - I'll let someone who's knowledgeable with the subject move and restructure everything as I have a feeling I'd screw it up!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OneChild[edit]

OneChild (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)

Local organization that fails the notability guidelines of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage. Refs stink. BMK (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Though it might be better to reframe/move the article to be about Cheryl Perera, whose name seems to be synonymous with the organization and who seems like the more interesting subject (i.e. OneChild is most notable for her work). Financial Times, Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, Flame Magazine, South Asian Generation Next, SamaritanMag, Canada.com, University of Toronto Magazine, Daily News (Sri Lanka)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. Rhododendrites found some good sources, but they're almost entirely about the founder. She's definitely notable, no question about it. The organization... maybe. But some of those sources don't even mention it, or they only mention it in passing while they discuss her history of activism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. source found.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Perrier[edit]

Bridget Perrier (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)

Activist of strictly local notability. Fails guidelines in WP:BIO. Kelly ^hi! 21:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lots of info here that the subject may not want on the internet. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm seriously skeptical WP:BEFORE is actually being followed now. And Lots of info here that the subject may not want on the internet is ridiculous. She's an activist and public speaker. She has a Gofundme campaign. She obviously wants this on the Internet. Passes WP:BIO. Vice, CBC, International Business Times, The Star, National Post, National Post, Feminist Current (news clip), CityNews, Toronto Observer, Native News Network (via SOTT), tbnews, Tulalipnews, Winnipeg Free Press, aptn, Hamilton Spectator, Canada.com, Kincardine Independent... Some of these are better than others, to be sure, but all reliable sources, not all local, and she's a big part of if not the subject of all of them. Every page of ghits returns more and more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhodo. Everyking (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless we rewrite the notability criteria. Collect (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhodo. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of sources highlighted here by Rhododendrites, plus even more available on Google News. Stories range from a few days ago to several years ago, showing a substantial and sustained amount of coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 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. Biblioworm 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina MacLeod[edit]

Katarina MacLeod (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)

Local activist, not notable per WP:BIO. The only claims to notability seem to be speaking at a couple of events. Kelly ^hi! 21:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. no notability and would she even want this article about her up? Legacypac (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Un-notable BLP: no claim to notability here - all that it is says is that she's spoken about her experiences (that she may well not want a Wikipedia article about) in a few local events. This woman has less claim to notability than me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:40, 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 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Health Shop[edit]

My Health Shop (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 company. Only claims of corporate notability are number of twitter followers (and claiming that value as evidence of "fastest growing" as a company itself is hopeless nonsense). DMacks (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference to fastest growing as DMacks states, although company can still be notable in that many thousands of people follow it. Wikipedia states "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject" a measure of popularity can be Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcoop814 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - no indication of notability. (7000 twitter followers can easily be purchased). . . .Mean as custard (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong (if not speedy) delete. Retail company without significant, substantial coverage in secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - that was why I put ((notability)) there in the first place. It would have been stronger if this business doesn't appear to be gaining any prominence anywhere (hence the reason I did not request deletion initially). <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when I saw the "possible vandalism" tag beside the entry for page's creation in the page history, I knew this might be a problem, for until now I have never seen a new page creation tagged as such.

• Delete Notability needs to come from WP:RS which are lacking and don't seem to exist. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG --Jersey92 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 07:21, 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 keep. Also unprotecting. I'm going to give Another Believer a chance to continue working on the page. I don't consider this AfD entirely valid, since the article was fully protected for most of it, stopping any reliable sources being added to establish notability. There's no urgent need for the article to be merged or deleted, as evidenced by the low levels of participation here, so we can afford to wait a couple weeks and see how the article develops. If we're still not satisfied that notability has been established, it's easy enough to re-nominate. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth (song)[edit]

Teeth (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)

Completely fails WP:NSONGS. There is no ounce of notability, nothing to indicate that independent third party reviewers critiqued the song. Passable mentions in album reviews and once used in a Discovery channel programme. Gaga has once performed this song, and coupled with that it did not have any chart action at all except an obscure placement in UK, makes it the least passable NSONGS article to be ever created. There is a reason why this was always redirected from the history. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gosh, I am disappointed by the resistance I've faced here, not to mention the language used by experienced editors on talk pages and in their edit summaries while I was actively working on this article. I am not going to vote to keep or delete this article yet, because I am currently finding sources to determine whether or not this song meets notability criteria. Right now, my hunch is that enough information could be found to justify an article, but I am not certain. We had a similar discussion over "Sexxx Dreams". Even WikiProject Lady Gaga participants were resistant, but the article has since been promoted to Good status. Let us all please remain calm and treat one another kindly as we evaluate this topic's notability, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IB, why do you say Gaga only performed the song once? I can find multiple concert reviews discussing her performances. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does it indicate the song's notability? The reviews discuss the Monster Ball Tour, not "Teeth" the song. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say her performing the song more than once indicated notability. I just asked why you said she only performed the song once. I was not sure where that was coming from, especially since the song was part of the setlist for The Monster Ball Tour. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Fame Monster doesn't get more than brief mentions outside of album reviews from any reliable sources except for one Music Times link. "The Blaze" is questionable and only provides brief commentary anyway, and Gigwise is not a reliable source. Not enough for a separate article. Can be briefly summarized in parent album article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding here, so are Sputnikmusic: written by an User as well as AXS: a ticekt merchandise. God knows how the creator can even consider them to be reliable. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, please stop with the insulting language. Usually one can make a better argument when it doesn't involve name calling and snide remarks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the The Fame Monster. The nomination is OTT but I think the key facts here can be summarised in the article on the album. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think this AfD was premature and I wish I had been given more of an opportunity to expand the article. I was in the process of doing so, which I made very clear, yet the article was AfD'd and now it is protected so that I cannot continue to work on its expansion. Perhaps this song could have enough press coverage to justify a stand-alone article, but with this much difficulty exploring the possibility, perhaps I should just move on to other projects. I don't contribute to Wikipedia to be insulted and prevented from try to make constructive edits. Quite disappointing, to be honest. I've posted a few more links on the talk page, which could be incorporated into the article if it is kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:11, 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 02:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Trade 101[edit]

Sex Trade 101 (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)

Small local organization not notable outside its local area per WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 19:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 07:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, and Shawn you need to look into the mess before making those comments. Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have looked into it. And two wrongs do not make a right. Neelix's terrible work on redirects does not meet that articles created by him on notable Canadian orgs should be punitively Afded, I've listed no less than 4 others where I believe that is the case, at the ANI. Now, as for this one, I've removed my procedural oppose above. A Gnews search reveals prominent mentions of this organization in a CBC news story and one on APTN. here's a prominent Globe and Mail mention. We have the National Post one already on the article. There's others on Gnews. It's sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH so Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete / Redirect - While there are many mentions of the organization and the founders are notable (and indeed both have Wikipedia articles), I'm not finding enough significant coverage of the organization to merit keeping. A redirect is probably sensible. Probably to Bridget Perrier, whose name I see most often connected to the organization in the sources I've seen. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very tangential references in media where they've put out press releases or been quoted for comment in articles not about them: again, I've founded organisations with stronger claims to notability than this (and I would never expect them to get written about on Wikipedia). The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bridget Perrier for now perhaps than deleting as there's not enough coverage at this time for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weronika Książkiewicz[edit]

Weronika Książkiewicz (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)

Long but unimportant career--no major roles. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative delete for now likely as News and Books found several links but I simply found nothing to suggest better, at best a marginally notable article could made if conceivable. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Seems to have a ton of supporting roles, but nothing else. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers requires "significant roles", and I don't see that here. That said, we have probably thousands of articles like this... this is one of those requirements that are not being very hardly applied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Textfiles.com[edit]

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

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

Relies entirely on primary sources. Notability itself in question. While an interesting website, until better sources can be found, the information here is potentially misleading. It appears that people close to the website were involved in the creation of this article. Air ♠ Combat _What's^{up, dog?} 17:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw by nomintator. Didn't see the previous debate. Closed as speedy keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirCombat (talk • contribs) 18:00, 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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Better World[edit]

A Better World (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)

Local charitable organization that fails notability guidelines of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 17:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. This isn't even close. WP:ORG says an org is notable if it has received non-trivial independent coverage. One of the refs is an article about the org's 20th anniversary, and a few of the others currently in the article are also non-trivial coverage. There's even a book about it [5] by a local journalist. Regionally notable is still notable. Gimmetrow 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I respectfully disagree with the "keep" argument above; what WP:ORG actually says isn't an org is notable if it has received non-trivial independent coverage, it's attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary which is clearly not the case here, and there's no indication that this is anything other than a tiny local group of minimal significance. "One of the refs is an article about the org's 20th anniversary" is a totally spurious argument; I can find equally legitimate articles in my own local paper about the 20th anniversaries of the Midhurst Community Bus Association, the Hemel Hempstead branch of Specsavers, the Ballymena Birdwatching Club and the West Dean Gardens Chili Fiesta, but it doesn't mean they qualify for Wikipedia pages by virtue of age. It's certainly possible for small local organisations to be notable by Wikipedia standards, but it needs to be demonstrated that they've had an impact significant enough to warrant the attention of those outside their local community, which this article singularly fails to do, and while it's a difficult name to Google I can't find any evidence that anyone else has noticed them. ‑ iridescent 19:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rajah's order of Alberta article is mostly about ABW [6]; it's been covered on Canoe [7] [8] - "Having a world-class humanitarian organization in your community presents some great opportunities for news coverage..."; and there's [9]. Gimmetrow 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly not a fan of the creator, but, to be fair, I have to speak in favour of keeping. The organisations unambiguously meets WP:GNG. Has received non-trivial independent coverage. The cited book above clearly adds weight. AusLondonder (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Satisfies WP:ORG. There's an awful lot of local coverage and enough national/regional to push it over the top. Adventist World magazine (cover story), founder (via org) one of CBC's Champions of Change, Edmonton Journal (Canada.com), Red Deer Advocate (2 3), LaCombe Express (2 3), Alberta Order of Excellence (primary source, indeed), Canoe.com... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep from what I can see, the nominator has taken it upon himself to mass delete a good many articles in Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Canada, with cookie cutter and in some cases deeply flawed or misleading rationales. In this case, A Better World is not a "local" organization - a favoured term of his in nominations, even if when it's not the case - and even if it were, being "local" is not a policy-based reason to delete. It is not the same as merely being a WP:BRANCH. Anyway, we have enough refs to meet notability requirements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This organization has received good press, lots of good connections and even though I live 12 hours drive away I'm familiar with their work. Notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Again, this is not even a close call. There are multiple examples of significant coverage in independent, reliable, mainstream media sources linked on this page above to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites' links to national media coverage, satisfying WP:ORG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - GNG seems to be fulfilled here. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Passes WP:GNG. My searches found lots of reliable sources that can be used to support notability and improve article. Nom fails WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What is being missed is the type of sources here. Really, you have references from two publishers and both of them are local. Every high school football team gets local coverage from two different sources, so policy demands we raise the bar a bit higher for corp notability. WP:CORP says it plainly: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. "At least regional", meaning regional coverage is not preferable, but is the minimum bar to useful in demonstrating it passes WP:GNG. When you only have local coverage, they can be used to verify facts, but they can not be used as proof of notability. The sourcing outside of the local doesn't seem to be strong enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like the CBC: [10]; Radio Free Europe:[11]; Adventist Review is also a more-than-regional publication, here:[12], as is Adventist World: [13].E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist World distributes 1.5 million print copies across multiple languages that are then passed around between members in churches, plus who knows how many web subscribers. I'd guess that 10 million people minimum see every monthly issue within 3 or 4 months of publication. The problem here is Neelix was interested in promoting She Has a Name so 2/3rds of the article focuses on a loose connection with that play choosing the charity to raise money for, not on the 20+ years of humanitarian work they have been doing. I'll do some fixing to give things balance later. Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic clearly demonstrates WP:SIGCOV in the article and in a WP:BEFORE search. Mkdw^talk 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 01:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts At Work[edit]

Scripts At Work (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)

Defunct local organization, fails WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 17:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage. BMK (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only the barest of local coverage to the extent that it can cite WP:RS at all, and that every link to a person is a red link kind doesn't help its claim either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Not a lot of local coverage and, as far as I can see, little-to-no regional/national coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 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 01:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Walk (play)[edit]

The Walk (play) (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 local play, apparently only performed once. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Exit stage left. BMK (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only good to get you in the topic article creator list. Legacypac (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:23, 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. Biblioworm 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G-ARRP[edit]

G-ARRP (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 individual plane. The only claim to fame is being the oldest surviving Piper PA-28 Cherokee, but I can't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just another spamcan; no references to support claim of notability. Current FAA register shows at least 12 older PA-28s. . Mean as custard (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, has no refs other than a listing on the aircraft registry, which lists all aircraft and so does not show notability, completely fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability#Individual_aircraft. Just nothing notable about this aircraft. Not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Correction - Google found two blurry shots - whoo hoo - still not noteworthy, even for a mention on the Cherokee page.NiD.29 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG etc., etc..--Petebutt (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just another light aircraft. The snow is falling.TheLongTone (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sign of anything notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive Fouls[edit]

Offensive Fouls (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 local play. Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article is now expanded. Meets WP:GEOSCOPE, performed in schools throughout Alberta, in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and at the Neptune Theatre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. WP:DEPTH is adequate in WP:RS from Toronto and Edmonton. Meets WP:LASTING; premiered in 1999, published in 2009, performed as recently as 2011. Helps balance the encyclopedia for systematic bias in two ways. First, with respect to ethnicity, by featuring the presentation of ethnically diverse characters by an indigenous cultural initiative, the All Nations Theatre. Second, with respect to expanding youth-oriented cultural coverage beyond commercial pop culture, by describing an entertainment production in Canadian schools designed to address anti-racism issues from a literary and educational perspective. --Djembayz (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can't say it any better than User:Djembayz AusLondonder (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's been produced by some of the more notable regional theatres in Canada. Nominated for a major and enough WP:SIGCOV otherwise. Mkdw^talk 19:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Dad[edit]

Hockey Dad (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 local play with only a short run. Kelly ^hi! 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BMK (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm tempted to just close this and other members of this walled garden, but just in case I'll simply vote delete. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To be fair it wasn't just a local play, it played all across western Canada. That being said I am not sure its notable so I will just leave this as a comment. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 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 redirect to Shoehorn#Turn of phrase (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoehorning[edit]

Shoehorning (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)

From Wikipedia's deletion policy page, reason #7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" In addition to this, topic is not notable enough to warrant a page. Heilige Krieger (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but tweak to fit more general definition found here.[14], [15] Very common term used beyond psychics. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete would seem to fall foul of WP:NEO, has only a single source. Possibly this topic could be covered better within a general article on psychics or con artists? 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? I listed two sources above. And as I said, it is not only a reference to psychics and con artists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per below. Artw (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak deleteRedirect to Shoehorn#Turn of phrase - I disagree that the topic is not notable. However, I agree that the page as currently constructed is too focused on applying the term to the paranormal when it is a general term which has been applied to many other contexts (such as business, ^[1] education,^[2] lingusitics,^[3] and others). However, Wikpedia is not a dictionary and I can't imagine the article being much more than a dictionary definition and perhaps an unmaintainable list of examples from various fields and contexts. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Christ on a cracker. If a topic is notable, it's not fit for deletion. The article's current state has nothing to do with this discussion. WP:DEL-REASON —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say the article's current state has anything to do with if it should be deleted or not. I said that any possible article on this topic would be nothing more than a dictionary definition and thereby violate Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is a long-established policy. Notability isn't the only deletion criteria. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect After reading the discussion above, I have changed my mind on the article's topic's notability, but still feel that it does not warrant a page of its own.Heilige Krieger (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above; as per WP:NOTDIC, it doesn't need a standalone article. The larger article with the photograph gives helpful context for readers who may not have had occasion to use a shoehorn. --Djembayz (talk) 12:26, 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 02:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Ertman[edit]

Morris Ertman (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 local theater figure. Fails WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 17:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - passable notability BMK (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local theatre figure: by this standard we could have an article on everyone who's ever done a bit of amateur theatre. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he is the artistic director of Rosebud Theatre which just went delete as well. Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW Drmies (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alysa van Haastert[edit]

Alysa van Haastert (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)

Local theater actor, fails notability guidelines in WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources appear to be newspapers or theatre magazines, this doesn't sound good.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I see nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable actor. BMK (talk) 15:28, 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. Biblioworm 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Chew[edit]

Evelyn Chew (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)

Local theater actor, fails notability guidelines in WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 17:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BMK (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor stage actor; not even really a claim to notability here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:35, 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 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Kennedy[edit]

Carl Kennedy (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)

Local theater actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, apparently only one nomination for a local award. Kelly ^hi! 17:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I simply see nothing better aside from the detailed and sourced article. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete evidently created to bluster the play about human trafficking. No notability. Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Another non-notable actor. Did Neelix promote these people for free? BMK (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E - appears to be only known for one play and sources relegate him to little more than a sentence or two. After that, the page should be re-appropriated as a redirect to Karl Kennedy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 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. Biblioworm 01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glenda Warkentin[edit]

Glenda Warkentin (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)

Local theater actor, fails WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's nothing for a better article yet aside from local work. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Apparently, in the world according to Neelix, Rosebud, Alberta, Canada has the highest percentage of notable actors in the Northern hemisphere, despite no one outside their families and the theatre community in Rosebud every having heard of them. Fails notability. BMK (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is getting ridiculous: having played any acting role at all in a minor play a Wikipedia editor is obsessed with is not a claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:34, 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 01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna Howell-Holden[edit]

Sienna Howell-Holden (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)

Local theater actor, fails WP:NACTOR. Kelly ^hi! 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I see nothing better to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete part of the Admin's quest to embellish anyone remotely related to his favorite plays. Legacypac (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability. BMK (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - random person who was in a play once, arguably could have been speedied. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:33, 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 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Wong[edit]

Denise Wong (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)

Local theater actor, fails WP:NACTOR guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Aren't these actors lucky to have piqued the interest of a prolific WP editor? Non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not much by way of significant coverage, and what there is is local. Fails WP:NACTOR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete helps to be in a minor play about human trafficking eh? Legacypac (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor role in a random play. This obsessive walled garden gets creepier as hell the further down the AfD page I get. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:32, 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 delete. Biblioworm 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Krogman[edit]

Aaron Krogman (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)

Local theater actor who fails WP:NACTOR. Has some local reviews and that's it. Kelly ^hi! 16:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see nothing better for a local actor. SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local amateur stage actor, no claim to notability, probably could have been speedied. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:31, 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. Biblioworm 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lepa Jankovic[edit]

Lepa Jankovic (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 the notability criteria. Local law enforcement official really only notable for one criminal investigation, which is mentioned in one sentence of this short article. The rest is just fluff about people she has met or comments people have made about her. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, fails notability criteria. As for why this was created "people she has met" = Tara Teng. AusLondonder (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Looks like a number of sources and stopping human trafficking is an important topic; I'd like to see expansion, so let's see if it can be improved. Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor women was just doing her job when she met Tara Teng and that fame brushed off on her. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Jeez, non-notable. BMK (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 99% of the article is not even about her. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Softlavender is right; the references to her are so trivial that the article isn't even about her - she's a police officer, and not even one in a public capacity; this is a hot mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:30, 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 02:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jassy Bindra[edit]

Jassy Bindra (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)

Local police official, no evidence of notability aside from giving some local talks or appearing at some regional conferences. Kelly ^hi! 16:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia -related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or redirect: to She Has a Name. I'm leaning delete,Metropolis Project is an international event, I'll grant that the city hall or local college talks aren't notable; but she's not "local,"she holds a province-wide job; would a similar position in, say, California or New York meet GNG? but I'd like someone familiar with the issue to see if this individual participated in more notable events; Vancouver would be a center for anti-human trafficking activism, given its large Asian population and location as an international port city. Montanabw^(talk) 23:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - human trafficking in Canada is notable. Not everybody who is against it is. WP:GNG not met. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speaking in these places is not notable, its her job. Legacypac (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Local officials are not inherently notable. BMK (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She's a local police officer doing public relations work: it's her job, there's zero claim to individual notability here, and if this was notable there's about 50,000 people working in identical roles with equal claims to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 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 02:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Fiolleau[edit]

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

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

No evidence or reliable sourcing to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 16:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender -related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably another article created in the creepy web of Tara Teng worship. Only apparent claim to "notability" was meeting Tara Teng. AusLondonder (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Just because she crossed paths with the unduly ubiquitous Tara Teng doesn't confer automatic non-notability. Let's see what gets dug up with the other articles on RCMPs and other Canadian law enforcement officials working to stop human trafficking. Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no coverage outside of Ontario. VERY CREEPY. This sentence in particular: "She thereby entered the sex industry and became a famous Madam married to the Mafia" - how is this encyclopedic in tone? Sounds the teaser to a Skinemax movie!!! —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Creepily written article on non-notable person that only seems to have been created because of her connections to Tara Teng; others put it well as well. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment she has had some press as an advocate, but the article is seriously bad. If she is notable it should have a section on her falling into prostitution and becoming a madam. Then a section on her advocacy. I'm tempted to TNT it which would allow someone to recreate and write a proper article. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what's "creepy" is the endless recitations of how "creepy" the article creator has been, insinuating the most lurid interpretations for what he's done. We know that he was a prostitution abolitionist and that was his interest in creating these articles. Enough already. Sometimes the creepiness you see is your own. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G7 Biblioworm 17:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 St. Francis Brooklyn Terriers men's basketball team[edit]

2016–17 St. Francis Brooklyn Terriers men's basketball team (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:TOOSOON. Season is still a year away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm author. I'll just save the reference in my sandbox. That is the primary reason I set it up.--El Mayimbe (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and proposal @El Mayimbe: and proposal. It is way too early for an article like this. The coaches can all change between now and then, the schedule isn't up, etc etc. Big college programs, like Duke, don't have an article yet for its 2016-2017. Kansas is a redirect which gives me an idea. Make this article into a redirect. Leave it as such till the late spring or summer of next year when tons of more information on next season is sure to be available. Please reply back. If you agree, I'll do the redirect and get an administrator to close this AFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:18, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daraa offensive (October 2015)[edit]

Daraa offensive (October 2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the sources use the term "Daraa offensive", so the whole title may be WP:OR. Also fails WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the provided sources confirm any ongoing organised offensive taking place in Daraa province. So, per nom, the whole article is generally unsourced OR. Also, most of the provided sources (SANA, Fars and Al Manar) are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia when it comes to the Syrian conflict and are generally not allowed to be used as sources. EkoGraf (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. too many articles about the conflict already to have fake ones. Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as well, it fails GNG along with the massive lack of RS. - SantiLak (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Entire delete argument seems to be based on lack of reliability of Iranian, Syrian and Russian press in the view of Wikipedia. I didn't realize this was Murdochopedia or Saudiopedia. Offensive, all the dead fighters, commanders who are fighting in it are CLEARLY notable and OR? Pah! SANA reports on it every day and all the deaths. And I have opened a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here [16] already discussing SANA where it seems to have been generally agreed they are reliable as a government spokesperson if credited properly (which I do). FARS (liable to the same Wikipedia RS precedent in my SANA discussion) calls it the "Daraa Offensive" (do voters even read the sources!) and reports almost hourly updates on it. This Southern (clearly not Northern) offensive is aimed at cutting the Saudi supply lines from Jordan. (Personal attack removed) Guru Noel (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be warned that accusing Wikipedia of being accomplice to genocide and accusing your fellow Wikipedia editors of being Nazis is highly inflammatory language that could get you banned. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you take a look at WP:CIVILITY and WP:BATTLEGROUND - SantiLak (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete after assessing the arguments. Legacypac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and SantiLak. Fails GNG. Also pinging Legacypac that they should strike one of their !votes.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Legacypac (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - WP:BEFORE wasn't even followed, as noted below being unreferenced isn't a reason to delete. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Convention Center[edit]

Charlotte Convention Center (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 sources. IPadPerson (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - an article being unreferenced is not a reason to delete it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obviously needs sources but seems notable otherwise. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps as it may be improvable. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EVE (organization)[edit]

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

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

Not a notable organization per WP:ORG. Sources are self-published, local, or tangentially mention the subject. Kelly ^hi! 14:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, delete. Marginal relevance, inflated claims in the article, part of walled garden, and sources do not provide significant discussion of the topic. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons given by Kelly. Rab V (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons as others. Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively / Redirect to Trisha Baptie, the founder of the organization. I'm seeing some sources, but among those of substance the focus is more on her than the organization, making it a pretty sensible merge/redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial references, very minor claims to notability. I've created organisations that have better hope of passing guidelines than this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:26, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah's Gate[edit]

Deborah's Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable organization/place per WP:ORG. Strictly local and minor coverage. Kelly ^hi! 14:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Source coverage is trivial mentions about other Salvation Army campaigns and organizations which happen to fund this shelter. Not independently notable. No redirect option per WP:XY. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Creator is a known Salvationist, doing advocacy on Wikipedia. Don't need a Wiki article on every property the group owns. Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As an atheist, I'm not a fan of the Salvation Army, but I don't just see local coverage here and I see a problem with the discussion. It seems as if the votes on this AfD are biased, because it shouldn't matter if the person is interested in the Salvation Army or not--you may as well tell me not to write about atheists or women because I'm both of those. Also, I disagree with the idea that local coverage negates notability: especially if the city is as large as Vancouver. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No, the coverage is purely local, and it's not very in-depth. Sources like this don't help either, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (thanks) I've visited here, its just a homeless shelter. Good but not notable. Legacypac (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just not seeing enough to pass WP:ORG/WP:GNG. There was a press release put out by the Canadian government about providing some funds to the organization and a few major outlets picked it up, but it's still just a press release. I have to say, though, I wonder if there's a way to combine all of these locally/marginally notable related topics into something bigger without relying on synthesis (something like "human trafficking activism in Canada"? Meh.). PS: @Legacypac: Likely an accident, but you !voted twice above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a random minor organisation created as a part of a concerted advocacy push; coverage is very trivial and to accept it as sufficient would extend guidelines in this area way beyond what they have traditionally been. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 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 02:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation[edit]

Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable organization per WP:ORG. Strictly local news coverage (or tangential mentions), no evidence of widespread or lasting impact. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plenty of reliable source coverage. Several of the sources are local-market newspapers, but they are local markets which are nationally distributed. The London Free Press markets on the opposite side of the continent from where this organization operates. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, no--delete. The coverage is minor, and even if that London Free Press is worldwide, we're still talking about a couple of newspaper articles. We're writing an encyclopedia and should aim higher, much higher. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Softlavender (talk)
• Delete. This is very minor coverage of a very minor lobby group, falls well short of both guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:23, 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. Close per WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Free (organization)[edit]

Breaking Free (organization) (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 the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Strictly local and minor news coverage, no evidence of widespread or lasting impact. Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]