< 8 November 10 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Procedural close. This malformed AfD was never properly opened, so it was never properly closed. Technically, it has still been open this whole time. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Agha Ishakzai[edit]

Gul Agha Ishakzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antrangelos (talkcontribs)

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 Drink up and DELETED by an Admin - (non-Admin close) Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NAC is inappropriate for a delete closure. The result here is delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korean drinking game[edit]

Korean drinking game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly unsourced. Refs relate to drinking, social etiquette of drinking in Korea but none support any of the content. Probably WP:OR or even a hoax. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   23:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. All original research, if not a joke. Zezen (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:29, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Hugo Hidalgo[edit]

Carlos Hugo Hidalgo (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 voice actor for English Wikipedia. Even his Spanish Wikipedia entry has been deleted. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:39, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Winn[edit]

Mississippi Winn (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:NOPAGE concerns. She was the seventh oldest person in the world at the time of her death. While oldest in Louisiana and oldest African American would at least be top people, the general view is that sub-national supercentenarians are not inherently notable. The three sources are all examples of WP:ROUTINE coverage and no evidence of WP:N. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrian details of an unremarkable, and unremarked, life. NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ask that question. You may jinx us with a flood of people who support that question affirmatively in all seriousness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've performed the anti-jinx ritual. EEng (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three people mentioned in these articles died while I was reading your long post. EEng (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's Great to be 108 (Jet, 30 May 2005)
930310 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
You haven't answered the WP:NOPAGE argument i.e. that even accepting (for the sake of argument) that the subject is notable, there's insufficient worthwhile stuff to say about him or her to justify a standalone article, and/or that what little is known about the subject is better presented in the context of a larger article or list.
If you'll list out the articles you mention as being even more worthy of deletion, I'll be happy to nominate them -- WP:OTHERCRAP. EEng (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think this is WP:A7. AfD isn't about verifiability of "a claim"; it's about SIGCOV. EEng (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 21:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Alan Ross[edit]

Rick Alan Ross (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)

He has done his best to work with us and failed in good ish faith. He is not very noteworthy, only that one case, create a redirect to it seems best. Jason Scott case His comment, I have repeatedly requested to have my bio deleted due to the way it has historically been abused for propaganda purposes and personal attacks. I don't think blocking and censoring me now is fair and it doesn't reflect the principles of fairness that Wikipedia says it stands on.Rick Alan Ross, seems to be the last resort for him. In the spirt of WP:BLP , lets end this here , delete. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Only that one case"? I guess all the work that I have done around the world that has been reported about by national and international media networks year after year for decades is somehow an illusion. Creating a redirect to the Jason Scott case, which ended in 1995-96 seems just a bit off. Excuse me, but Wikipedia at times seems like an alternate reality created by its editors for its editors and not in the interest of public education.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RAR, you said you'd go away for at least three days and not post or edit in order to get a handle on policy and guidelines. And, as I expected, you reneged on that promise just as you have previously with similar promises. Do you think we're kidding here? Please don't answer. Just fulfil your promise. -- WV 01:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about some of your comments some more, I'm struck by the outright and sheer arrogance of them. First of all, BLPs in Wikipedia are written quite well and without the assistance of the article subject all the time. It's been that way since the first Wikipedia BLP was created. We don't need you or any article subject to help us write such bios. As far as balance, Wikipedia editors (especially those of us who have been here a while and have thousands and thousands of edits to our credit) know how to create the appropriate balance in an article based on Wikipedia guidelines. And if we ever get flummoxed, we have each other to work with in order to get it right. We don't need you be "a check" or a frame of reference, because we have reliable references available to us. That's the way it works for all BLPs, in fact. Do you honestly think we are all so inept that we can't get it right? Do you seriously think that you, someone who has said over and over again that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, can better edit or edit by proxy than those of us who already know policy and guidelines? If people truly do "pop in to use the bio as a punitive place to bash" you, it's taken care of. Those of us who have been answering your questions and have taken inordinate amounts of time trying to explain things to you have the article on our Watchlists, so we know when an edit occurs and will correct it if it's outside the bounds of policy. You really don't need to be here for the article to be done right nor do you need to keep a guard on the article. We're not idiots and we're not new to this. You, on the other hand, keep telling us how you don't get Wikipedia. Well, if you really don't get how things work, please stay out of the way of those who do. -- WV 02:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I never called anyone an idiot. I think that my knowledge of the facts and reliable sources about my own life and work is meaningful and probably more informed and in-depth than most Wikipedia editors. Also, given the sorry history of my bio and all the sock puppets posting there it isn't meaningful or constructive to insult me. I will continue to read the Wikipedia links offered. I will take a break to do this and appreciate the constructive criticism and helpful suggestions offered. If you will please stop posting misleading negative rants about me there would be no need for me to respond. Let's cool off and take a break. We both have better things to do.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, cool it off and take a break? You said yesterday you would stay away. You haven't done it yet. And you want the community to trust you? You haven't yet given us any reasons to do so. From what you've demonstrated so far, your word is no good and you have proven yourself to be totally fucking disruptive. -- WV 14:30, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Saylor[edit]

Spencer Saylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. The current content is unduly promotional. Prodded; deprodded by Stifle who asserted notability but did not provide any additional references and did not address the other problems. Huon (talk) 22:25, 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 redirect/delete as a recreation of an article previously brought to AfD back in September, a little under two months ago. The issues have not been resolved and the sources here do not establish how Barron is independently notable of his father. As was said at the prior AfD, children do not automatically inherit notability from their parents except in very specific circumstances such as certain types of royalty. Other than a couple of sources, the focus is almost solely on Barron's parents and it could also be argued that the sources that do mention Barron are more interested in covering his parents than they are the child himself. There's also the issue of him being a minor, which means that we need to approach an article with even more caution than we would an adult. That his parents are not entirely shy about putting him in the public eye is irrelevant. I think that Bearcat sums up Wikipedia's policy on children of famous parents quite well in this edit to the prior article for Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt: "redirect; per WP:NOTINHERITED she does *not* qualify for her own separate Wikipedia article until she's actually done something more notable and sourceable than having famous parents." If someone wants to contest this, this will have to be taken to WP:DRV. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barron William Trump[edit]

Barron William Trump (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 of meeting WP:BASIC beyond a 2015 People Magazine profile of him. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:19, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talyan Wright[edit]

Talyan Wright (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 fails WP:NACTOR. To date her career has consisted of only minor parts. Her most notable role was as a minor recurring character in 5 episodes of Two and a Half Men. AussieLegend () 11:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" usually means a main character, or a recurring character whose participation in a TV program went well beyond that of a recurring character. In this case, Wright's role was simply a recurring character in 5 episodes. Having a recurring role in a notable TV show does not constitute a significant role because notability is not inherited. The subject must stand on their own as a notable individual. --AussieLegend () 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, understood. But, for future articles, what is the cut off point of significance, and where is that defined, on WP? Also, what is the situation with awards from notable insitutions? Given these were awarded to Wright, specifically, wouldn't that make her notable, as an individual? She did play a major role in both short films. Are short films exempt from notability? If so, where is that stated on WP, so I know for the next article? Although I thought Wright was notable, I also don't want to make the mistake of creating articles for non-notables. I want to improve my editing skills, so I can avoid time-consuming deletion noms, in future.--User:AntonTchekhov| reply here 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:09, 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STOPzilla[edit]

STOPzilla (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)

Written like an advertisement, very little references and hardly referenced. Very little information anywhere except under Reviews. Anarchyte 11:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:09, 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. KTC (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NetBet[edit]

NetBet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is written like an advert/press release, i.e:

"NetBet is a regulated and transparent website, which offers its players secure payment methods for depositing and withdrawals, such as Visa, Mastercard, Skrill, Neteller and Paysafecard"

and

"NetBet works closely together with counselling services for gambling addiction and allows players to set deposit limits for themselves. The site also offers demo versions of the games, which can be played without wagering real money, and denies registration of minors" Lancshero (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:08, 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. KTC (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CAIF[edit]

CAIF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage of this network protocol anywhere, only the Linux kernel changelog already cited and an email by the authors of the Linux module here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:07, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fair692 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Stuart Styron[edit]

Stuart Styron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been speedy deleted twice and been the subject of a previous AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Styron) that closed as Delete. Right now, the article is in worse shape than in 2014 and the original reasons apply: Non-notable as actor, musician, or artist. I have suggested to the article creator that the article be userfied but they insist on recreating the article. Liz Read! Talk! 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like much of the copy of the article is taken from his Facebook biography. Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finngall, that draft article is sparse on notability but at least it is original content rather than being cribbed from his Facebook About page. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Finngall, Peridon and Liz Read! Talk! I should apologize some reactions from the last 2 days. Before I decided to work very seriously on the article, I could imagine how hard it gonna will be. But hard attacking every hour from everyone to delete the article, because of the "disasters", "Speedy deletetes" from the past (for example) is not acceptable. It`s now 1 year left and a new chance for a new article is absolutly okay. With a negative energy going through from the first minute is not professional and against Wikipedia rules. I even not starting with the text and all of you starting attacking. So, i must react in the same form to get attention that I am serious in what I`m doing. I know there is an option however it is, that Stuart Styron should placed here on wikipedia. It is just a question of finding the right elements. "Living people" or "artist" or "musician" or "actor" should be checked cleary, I know that now, but it`s not easy. He is a musician and an actor, he already study all in all for many years, but if it`s not notable, that`s fine, but we should find a middle way to describe his work and engagement. Kicking him out with all your hearts is a mistake. Whatever, now the site looks much better and i still working on it. If you want to help in some points, that would be fine. I would be thankfull for every positive advice and enthusiasm. Ulla1956 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talkcontribs) Hello Finngall, Peridon and Liz Read! Talk! Can someone check the work I did, please? There are many changes since you nominated the article for deletion. Thank you. Ulla1956 02:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Disability Journal[edit]

Considering Disability Journal (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 new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are currently 4 sources in the article. #1 is an email announcement and call for papers. Not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]) contributing to notability. #2 is an in-passing mention on the website of the founder's university: not independent and not in-depth. #3 is a company profile on a website that takes its information from public sources and doesn't guarantee it is correct. Not a reliable source and not in-depth coverage. #4 is the journal's own website. Unfortunately, none of these sources contributes to notability. Being the "only journal in field for entry-level studies" is not something mentioned in either WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:05, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cylin Busby[edit]

Cylin Busby (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)

On the one hand, we have a BLP1E situation with her father and the shooting. On the other hand, we have her book-writing. The former does not lend itself towards inclusion on Wikipedia, and the latter is not significant enough for her to pass WP:AUTHOR. The book-selling success is (if I had to guess) largely due in part to the TV show that featured her (and probably threw in a plug or three for the book). Her other works do not appear to have drawn much attention, and thus she does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see Nom's point, that she is hardly a major writer. But Wikipedia is all about sources, and this author/article has sources and plenty to pass WP:AUTHOR. I added a little sourcing on her childhood. Obviously needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ragini (Telugu actress)[edit]

Ragini (Telugu actress) (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 references are unreliable. There are many actresses named Ragini. The Avengers (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Delete - If the articles creator fails to add reliable references within a couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magipur (talkcontribs) 14:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For Indian topics, WP:INDAFD: "Ragini"
Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO by winning the notable Nandi Award for for three consecutive years as Best Comedian. Alo, it would seem her career meets WP:ENT and her coverage meeting WP:GNG.[3] What we need is assistance from Indian/Telugu Wikipedians to refine searches, not deletion for being a poor stub. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:45, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYNU-TV[edit]

DYNU-TV (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 proof of its notability provided in any way. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RioHondo: Is there any reason to consider this station notable enough for its own article other than guidelines you haven't read thoroughly? If it does have original programming, how come the only thing the article contains is information about its location and specs? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Raykyogrou0:, as i said WP:BEFORE. You have nominated this article for deletion without even thinking and researching if it offers regional programs that suit its regional viewers of Cebuano speakers when notability for broadcast stations relies on that (and not just what you see in the article's current state).--RioHondo (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously accusing me of not knowing the policy? There aren't even any results to be found when searching the station alone. [4] I mean like, come on. If you have something to present that actually proves notability, go ahead. Otherwise, get busy with something else more useful instead of this pointless argument. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is titled following some convention. It appears that its common name is UNTV 39 or UNTV Cebu. But as I am not familiar with this channel or anything about the Cebu regional media market for that matter, I would have to wait for the article maker to make the clarification.--RioHondo (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is the channel, this is an article about the station. Not that it matters, there's nothing notable to say about this article. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this station have its own Cebuano language programming like most regional stations? Pinging article starter Supergabbyshoe, appreciate your help on this. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:01, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYBU-TV[edit]

DYBU-TV (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 proof of its notability provided in any way. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RioHondo: Is there any reason to consider this station notable enough for its own article other than guidelines you haven't read thoroughly? If it does have original programming, how come the only thing the article contains is information about its location and specs? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Raykyogrou0:, as i said WP:BEFORE. You have nominated this article for deletion without even thinking and researching if it offers regional programs that suit its regional viewers of Cebuano speakers when notability for broadcast stations relies on that (and not just what you see in the article's current state).--RioHondo (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously accusing me of not knowing the policy? There aren't even any results to be found when searching the station alone. [5] I mean like, come on. If you have something to present that actually proves notability, go ahead. Otherwise, get busy with something else more useful instead of this pointless argument. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is titled following some convention. It appears that its common name is TV Natin 43? But as I am not familiar with this channel or anything about the Cebu regional media market for that matter, I would have to wait for the article maker to make the clarification.--RioHondo (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is the channel, this is an article about the station. Not that it matters, there's nothing notable to say about this article. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this station have its own Cebuano language programming like most regional stations? Pinging article starter Aztegdude, appreciate your help on this. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Jane Weinstein[edit]

Rebecca Jane Weinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find references that convince me this author truly meets WP:GNG. The links in the article are mostly self-published. Many are self promotional; notably, links to the subject's own Kickstarter funding campaigns, and to guest-written pieces at Today and the Huffington Post websites. Most all are self-published primary sources, even if thinly veiled. It's not hard to find a few mentions of the books, so maybe the books are more deserving of articles than the author is. Mikeblas (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really finding much either. I see a few places running excerpts or general human interest pieces, but they're fairly few and far between. The best I found was this article that talks about her appearance on the Today Show, however that's not really enough to have an article. From what I can see, she received a small flurry of coverage around 2012 but not much attention since then. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least this will need to be cleaned to get all of the promotional material out. I just found three hotlinks to Amazon in the bibliography section. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ended up finding those through the databases offered via the libraries for Drexel and VCU. I was a little surprised that I found them, to be honest, since they didn't show up in other searches. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 20:58, 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 merge to AXA UK. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftcover[edit]

Swiftcover (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)

Certainly questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was simply not convincingly better here, here and here and considering there a few news sources in the article such The Independent, there may be more but it's not convincingly better again. With its current state, it can even be considered speedy and PROD material but given its age and history, AfD again may be better. Pinging past AfD commenters Stifle, NickelShoe, Master Jay and Mailer diablo, past users JzG, Closedmouth, MER-C, X! and Postdlf. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 20:57, 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 speedy keep. per SK1 (I know there's a delete !vote but notability was proven by sources thus making the delete !vote moot), Thanks JMWt for your help in finding sources :). (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 13:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GTFM[edit]

GTFM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable radio station, Due to the moronic station name I cannot find anything at all on the station, Even "GTFM Wales" shows nothing, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News and media-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it has an Ofcom licence doesn't mean it should get an article, With the greatest of respect If there's nothing on Google or anywhere else that establishes notability then it doesn't deserve an article, Not true community stations can be and are in most cases are notable but some stations like this one aren't notable. –Davey2010Talk 21:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, WP:NMEDIA does state that if a station has a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority (FCC, CRTC, Ofcom, etc.), then it needs to make no further claim of notability beyond the fact of having a license — but the fact of having a license does not constitute an exemption from having to reliably source the resulting article. A radio station does not gain an entitlement to keep an article that's permanently unsourced, or based solely on primary sources like its own website — it's the quality of reliable source coverage that you can provide to support the notability claim, not the mere fact that an unsourced claim of notability has been asserted, that gets a radio station in the door. Better sourcing might be possible here if somebody has access to a better database of British media coverage than what shows up on Google News — I only have deep database access to Canadian newspapers, so I'm not the angel of salvation here — but having an Ofcom license does not give a radio station a "no sourcing required" freebie. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're talking about two different things here, first whether the station is notable, and deserves a page, at all. I agree with Bearcat (and apparently WP:NMEDIA) that having a broadcast license should be enough to fulfil the notability challenge. The secondary question is about the sourcing. And I would agree that the sourcing on the page is bad. I said this above - I'm saying the page should be kept even if it is decided that the content needs paring and the sources improved. I also note that according to local media, an independent survey suggested that it was the most listened-to radio station in the broadcast area. I've been able to find references on the station in other local media, from the Welsh government, from OFCOM, from the UK charity regulator. I therefore disagree that this station is not notable and politely suggest that it ought to be possible to rewrite the page sourcing information from outwith of their own primary source. I think that would make it a more valuable page for potential visitors wanting to find out about the most popular radio station in their area, even if it has limited interest to anyone else. JMWt (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added some extra references from books, OFCOM official documents, news reports etc. Please can you take a look and tell me if this (obviously still incomplete) improvement addresses any of the issues raised here? If not, can you please explain what it is that would be needed? JMWt (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's definitely heading very much in the right direction — I'd certainly like to still see a little bit more if possible, but you yourself acknowledged that it's "obviously still incomplete", and there is enough meat to what's already there that I can officially now take a position one way or the other: flag for refimprove, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felixstowe Radio[edit]

Felixstowe Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable radio station, The only source I managed to find was something to do with a carnival[6] which for a 9 year old station is extremely poor!, If it's taken 10 years just for that bit of source then this station's screwed notability-wise!, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Given this is a community radio station with limited range (5-10km for community stations in the UK) I'm not surprised you couldn't find any national secondary sources :-) Perhaps it's worth collapsing the set of UK community radio stations (many of which have similar pages and are likely to be similarly non-notable - sorry I haven't gone looking yet) into a tabular format? I need to declare a vested interested of course: I'm the volunteer technical manager at Felixstowe Radio. Phlash909 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlash909 - There is a table somewhere as that's where I've been basically nominating via, To be fair tho there's quite alot of community stations here that are notable, We could redirect to the table I suppose but I'm not sure there was much info there, –Davey2010Talk 00:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well the list is at List of radio stations in the United Kingdom but for the community section there's barely anything there and so IMHO redirecting all stations there would be pointless, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks - I hadn't seen that page, that pretty much covers what I was suggesting by 'collapsing into tabular format', I wasn't suggesting lots of redirects. Phlash909 (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I didn't even realize you said that!, Think I need to go sleep , I know but if we redirect this then we'd really need to redirect them all and to be honest it seems to much flaffing around . –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 20:56, 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. joe deckertalk 02:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn FM[edit]

Dawn FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable radio station, Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 20:55, 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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISentia[edit]

ISentia (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)

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were this, this, this and this and this has not changed much since starting in October 2005. Several users have come and go, changing this and that, but none of them are considerably active except DMacks. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of these articles concern the IPO and the stock price following the IPO, and while I'm far from an expert on these things I'd think that this is more or less routine coverage any company would have after an IPO, regardless of the notability of the company. Bjelleklang - talk 17:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fine for the sources to be about the IPO and the stock price following the IPO.

    From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage:

    Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

    There is "deep coverage" about iSentia.

    This article from The Australian:

    iSentia was a dream pitch for private equity seller Quadrant, which did a fantastic job of getting this away at a price-earnings-ratio of 26. There’s also no doubt that media monitoring is a good and growing business. iSentia is the largest firm of its kind in Australia, enjoying a 90 per cent market share by revenue, and counting 87 per cent of the S&P/ASX 100 as customers. Tick the box marked ‘‘industry leader with pricing power’’.

    The company was founded in 1982 as a press clipping service, but is now a software company. Its products are organised into three pillars to help organisations get their message into the mainstream and social media, keep customers up to date with what’s appearing in the media, and delivering analytical reports on an organisation’s performance in the media.

    The company’s 5000 or so customers – mainly large companies and governments – pay a subscription fee to access these products and tend to be loyal. Its top 50 clients have been with the company for an average of more than 11 years – another tick.

    There’s also the fact that iSentia’s software is highly scalable. With costs largely fixed, a decent chunk of each additional sale flows straight to the bottom line. That’s good for growing margins. Tick.

    This article from The Australian:

    iSentia was among the most traded stocks, with its market cap hitting $486 million.

    iSentia dominates Australia's media monitoring market, providing information from various media sources to alert business and government clients to what is being said about their organisations, competitors and industry.

    The company uses software and other systems to capture and interpret data from more than 5,500 mainstream media outlets, 55,000 online news sources and 3.4 million user-generated content sources on Facebook, Twitter and Weibol.

    Clients include Microsoft, Nike, Coca-Cola and Samsung and most of the top 100 companies listed on the ASX.

    It also operates in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam and has an emerging presence China.

    The Australian says that "iSentia dominates Australia's media monitoring market", which strongly establishes that iSentia is notable.

    And the coverage I quoted above extends "well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage:).

    Cunard (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but relisted as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 1.  Sandstein  19:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:34, 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. KTC (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Maxwell[edit]

Abel Maxwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of non-notable person. The "National Academy of Best-Selling Authors" is a vanity award [7] and absolutely not a claim to notability, and all sources except one are primary sources such as press releases or directory listings. The exception is a review on a blog, so not a reliable source and again not support for notability. bonadea contributions talk 19:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley McGirr[edit]

Bradley McGirr (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)

Apparently non-notable local politician. 0 hits on Highbeam, 0 hits on Google News Archive, 1 hit on Google News, for a child of 13 in New Zealand. The article is a shameless autobiography, copied directly (with permission) from his profile at the law firm where he works, and as far as I can see entirely innocent of any vestige of an independent reliable source. I started trying to clean it up, but then asked myself why I was doing that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:25, 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. joe deckertalk 02:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Hulme[edit]

Sophie Hulme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that since I created this AFD, some editors have added a number of sources that may reflect notability per WP:GNG. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:46, 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. Given less weight to canvassed and votes based on personal attacks. The argument around the sources is around their reliability and whether they pass the GNG. Generally, in the UK, tabloid sources do not count so arguments about the Mirror et al are valid but broadsheet coverage does. The argument then comes down to whether interviews are enough to pass the gng. There is a wide consensus that they do not - indeed they are considered primary not secondary sources as the information comes from the subject not an independant source. As that is essentially the argument put forward to counter the keep argument, it does firmly reflect policy and practise and leaves the conclusion that the consensus is to delete. That said, I have the sense that this is very close to the line and that further coverage not based in interviews presented in my talk page could persuade me to reverse this close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nigma Talib[edit]

Nigma Talib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. The best claim to notability is that she wrote a book that appeared at number 248 on the Amazon.com bestseller's list. This does not seem good enough per WP:AUTHOR. The other claims to notability are based on press-coverage that seem to be more part of a junket rather than notable for some sort of journalistic reason. It may happen that eventually she gets her own talkshow or becomes famous and notable for some reason, but until that time I think it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have a WP:BLP on this subject since there isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources we would need to write a biography on a naturopath. jps (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV and BLP are not notability standards. Obviously additional or more stringent notability standards are what I was referring to. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV and BLP are not notability standards, but articles must still meet these policies, and deletion is not only for notability, the article fails NPOV and BLP and maybe cannot ever pass, so delete it. The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 15:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" Daily Telegraph and other celebrity-focused magazines" is nonsense. By any standards, The Telegraph is a reliable source and is not a 'celebrity-focused magazine'. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone bother to search those locations mentioned in the article? Highbeam search shows four mentions of The Mirror, The Birmingham Post, Daily Record and Chronicle, definitely independent reliable sources on [10]. If she was interviewed in that many reliable sources she'd be notable. I am changing my vote to Strong keep Ireneshih (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As jps pointed out, the number of mentions are effects of a PR junket and also seem to be from syndication, rather than multiple reliable sources. The locations are irrelevant if they are basically copying the same content, which was reporting on natural ways to keep skin moisturised without sunscreen. Those sources are not reliable as they discuss pseudoscience topics, like taking "a teaspoon of organic sesame oil, swish it in my mouth for a minute each morning and then spit it out. It helps detoxify the body and improve skin” or "Headstands are great for getting the blood to flow to the face, oxygenating your complexion and helping to remove wrinkle-inducing toxins." Those sources are tabloid-style publications which are not known for publishing purely journalistic content of high reliability. According to WP:Potentially_unreliable_sources, "In general, tabloid-journalist newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should not be used." Delta13C (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delta13C, Do you mean The Mirror, The Birmingham Post, Daily Record, Telegraph, New York Observer, Daily Mail and others are not reliable??? If you believe they are not reliable sources there are atleast 100k existing Wikipedia pages referenced with these sources, lets clean all these pages with sources and bring all of these pages to WP:AFD. If they are a part of PR junket, it is clearly marked on them as as Press Release or Paid Advertisement. Reviewing your recent contributions, they seem to be mostly focused around only this page after your failed attempt to create a promotional page of another naturopath Draft:Michael Uzick. If you know what reliable sources and what are not, why this page was attempted??? Is Nigma Talib a business competitor of Draft:Michael Uzick?


WP:PUS is an essay and as such has no status. Further it is incomplete and, in any case, no justification has been given to support those sources that are included. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PUS, like all such essays, is a rationale and isn't -- and was never intended to be -- some sort of binary law. Proclaiming "it's just an essay" is, in fact, an implicit admission you don't have an actual counter-argument to use against it. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PUS has good advice. In addition to being circumspect of sources that qualify as tabloid journalism it also makes a great point about Who's Who scams, of which one was formally referenced in the Nigma Talib article section on Awards and Recognition Old revision of Nigma Talib. I understand that editors should apply advice in essays if they help improve Wikipedia. In this case because most of the citations in Nigma Talib come from tabloid, celebrity gossip newspapers and talk about pseudoscience topics and are aimed at business promotion, rather than discussing real achievements, influence on history or science, or anything that would suggest a notable contribution to the greater good. As far as I can tell, Nigma Talib does spa treatments on celebrities and makes dubious claims about gluten and wine affecting the health of facial skin, which are not supported by science. I'd hardly call the page I tried to create of Michael Uzick a promotional page. I noted he has been sanctioned by his naturopathic board for using a pecular substance that is illegal in his practice, which I thought was curious and perhaps notable. It was my first try at making a page (trying to stick to WP:NPOV, and I wanted to gain experience. I learned a lot, including how to use reliable sources, which is what I am now applying in this case. Delta13C (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delta13C, Can you please review List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation, Page has references from the most reliable sources (Only for references Telegraph.co.uk is Daily Telegraph). Also I would again like to know how Draft:Michael Uzick is notable 20 days back?? 09:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding the assertion that PR efforts on the article subject's behalf magically make reliable sources not count: No. Companies and individuals issue press releases all the time, and Wikipedia properly does not consider such sources when looking for sources to establish notability. However, once a reliable source such as The Telegraph takes information contained in a press release and subjects it to fact-checking and editorital control, the resulting article, even if based in part on such press releases, is both a reliable source and a valid proof of the notability of subjects discussed in any depth in the article. If we discounted every newspaper or magazine article that used a press release as a source for some of its content, half of Wikipedia (or more?) would have to go. I realize this fact about use of press releases by mainstream press outlets may not be obvious to some people who have never worked in publishing; hopefully the distinction between a press release and an article which used a press release as a source is now clear. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, if WP:GNG isn't a guarantee of being eligible for an article, then there are higher chances than there are thousands of pages on Wikipedia would qualify for deletion. Your reasons are not satisfactory. Can you please review the history of the page, most of her contributions were edited and deleted by users.

Please review Category:Internet celebrities, they also qualify only due to WP:GNG. If the she was referenced in only one or two sources, she would have failed WP:GNG but with the existing sources notability is WP:INHERITED. Ireneshih (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject here is Talib's articles. The subject here is not internet celebrities, climate change, or the batting averages of the 1939 San Francisco Seals. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
So, did you have anything resembling an actual argument, our are you limited to frantic handwaving? --Calton | Talk 02:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that for the argument of inheritance to work for notability, then Nigma Talib needs to be associated with something that is certainly notable. What is this legitimately notable something? Delta13C (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inheritance is in the number of reliable sources, 1 where she is mentioned as an expert naturopath and indeed much more reliable than Draft:Michael Uzick. If she isn't notable, how Draft:Michael Uzick is notable 20 days back??
Stuartyeates, Did you checked these http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wellbeing/health-advice/the-skin-doctor-who-will-change-your-life/ http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/news-features/TMG10624773/Nigma-Talib-The-Complete-Woman.html 4, http://observer.com/2014/11/have-you-got-wheat-wine-or-dairy-face/ http://www.graziadaily.co.uk/beauty/beauty-products/naturopathic-expert-dr-nigma-talib-shows-us-what-s-inside-her-make-up-bag-20141227905 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035d8qd
I checked all but the video (which doesn't play for me). A non-adversarial interview with the subject, where no prior research or critical evaluation is apparent, is not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stuartyeates, Again checking upon again on your comment, Many of the sources which mention her do not cover her 'in depth' as required by the WP:GNG. Do you still believe it doesn't meet WP:GNG? References are from List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation, even if they are interviews they do not call any naturopath multiple times if they are not reliable or non-notable (Review). If not than what about Category:Internet celebrities, there are all references of interviews only ?Ireneshih (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stuartyeates, articles are allowed to cite sources which do not establish notability when the purpose of the citation is to establish a fact in the article. So long as several of the sources cited are in depth and from reliable independent sources, it is not required that all sources cited cover the subject in depth. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • articles are allowed to cite sources which do not establish notability when the purpose of the citation is to establish a fact in the article. Except that they're being used here to establish notability. Which, well, they don't. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My intent is not to WP:Votestacking, but asking senior resources why the page wasn't deleted earlier by them when it wasn't notable, Again the same question, how Draft:Michael Uzick is notable 20 days back according to you when Nigma Talib is not? Ireneshih (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You selectively solicited votes. That is votestacking. I concede that Draft:Michael Uzick is not notable. It was my first try at creating an article. Delta13C (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So does it means that you have less experience in clarfying what is notable and what is not? (Review this) This is indeed not your first try at creating an article, it is second after KWUR. I typically do not understand why your edits are only around this page, whether it is tag templates or noticeboard? As suggested by GrammarFascist, Please focus on the contributions, not the contributors. Ireneshih (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot I created the KWUR article. It was over 10 years ago. I guess Uzick article then is considered by first article creation in recent memory. Thanks for pointing that out. I did make a mistake in issuing a warning, which I retracted, because I misread the timestamps of that user's edits. This discussion between you and me is becoming less about the merits of the Nigma Talib article and more about your analysis of my contributions to Wikipedia. Why don't we move this aspect of our disagreement to your talk page or mine? Delta13C (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging editors to a deletion discussion who have previously contributed to an article (including its talk page) is not necessarily an attempt at canvassing or votestacking. If all editors who recently contributed are included, it is arguably merely a courtesy. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective pinging is votestacking, you know the ping did not include other editors, so why pretend this is harmless? The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said selective pinging was not votestacking; why pretend I did? Put the strawman down. That said, the ping appears to have targeted editors who a) had edited the article recently but b) had not participated in the deletion discussion. Editors who had already participated, regardless of which view we took, were not included presumably because they had already contributed to the discussion. Asking an editor why they didn't nominate an article for deletion that was subsequently nominated by someone else is reasonable, and Ireneshih sepecifically gave that as her reason for pinging those editors. There was no way to know whether they would be in favor of or opposed to deletion; some editors who worked on the article had already argued in favor of deletion. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's need to stamp out any and all naturopaths. Really. And your evidence for Wikipedia's need is, what, exactly? Did I miss the "Wikipedia:Stamp Out Naturopaths/Noticeboard" page? --Calton | Talk 02:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'CommentNigma Talib: The Complete Woman" expresses an identity and atleast for me means the same and other sources even point out this.Kavdiamanju (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that article's title bears the subject's name, it does not cover her in depth but rather talks briefly about various pseudoscientific habits the subject does on a daily basis, like reiki, while promoting seven+ distinct products or individuals' businesses. That article is obviously part of a press junket. Delta13C (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So any mention in the Telegraph means you are notable and should ignore all Wikipedia policies? Guess we should get cracking, there's thousands of BLPs to write.DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Complete Woman" is a regular series in The Telegraph that superficially highlights women in fashion and beauty alongside flagrant promotion of commercial products they like: [11] Delta13C (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, DreamGuy I might agree to your comment if it was the only source. Even a simple google search drives multiple news sources and the content is WP:NPOV. Telegraph is not a source, which flaunts or exaggerate to being larger, better, or worse than it really is. There are several media reps that claim to publish them in the reliable sources however Telegraph has not confirmed it or even I cannot find any news where Telegraph has confirmed of writing promotional article. If someone claims promotional content on Telegraph, we cannot rely on it without evidence. The example of most promotional content is for WP:ACTOR, where the content is highly promotional and still considered to be reliable. On the contrary these sources are still reliable, this is a better situation and sources are reliable.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with me or diagree, I don't care. But articles have a lengthy list of requirements to stay, and articles that stay have to meet WP:FRINGE and other requirements. If the article manages to stay it won't read remotely like it does now. 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with me or disagree, I don't care are very harsh words when everyone is working on a common goal here. Normally, I would go along with the nomination, but in this case, the sources seem to show that she has gotten significant media attention.Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:31, 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 (G11) by Allen3 (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surfingkeys[edit]

Surfingkeys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article, the chrome extension, is brand new. Less than a couple weeks old. Less than two months old. Nothing has been No articles or anything significant have been written about it to my knowledge, and the article was created by the maker of the extension. There exists no very few references to it on the internet other than the pages to download the extension. Elzbenz (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in good faith though, I hope that this info can exist elsewhere. To be an article it can't be something that is brand new and is yet to be written about by anyone. Feel free to nominate for speedy deletion, don't let what I've done slow that down if this is just a standard thing to speedy delete.Elzbenz (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Extension was first created or maybe released September 4 2015. I have corrected my original comment with the use of bold for additions and strikethroughs for removals. Elzbenz (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:29, 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 speedy delete. Promotional, unsourced, already exists as draft Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanggelan beach[edit]

Nanggelan beach (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)

Reads like an essay with unreliable sources JMHamo (talk) 16:58, 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. joe deckertalk 02:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Ventures Limited[edit]

Ergo Ventures Limited (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)

Business that isn't notable. Author deleted the speedy tag. //nepaxt 16:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 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. (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelbarrow Mine[edit]

Wheelbarrow Mine (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)

An article about a mine which may or may not have been found. The single ref from 1940 is also speculative about whether what was found was or was not the mine. Fails WP:GNG by a spectacularly wide margin. Although most places are judged as inherently notable, this article cannot actually say whether this is a place and whether what may or may not have been found in 1940 was or was not that place.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:57, 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.

Dwaitham[edit]

The result was DELETE by an Admin- non-Admin listing close Legacypac (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaitham (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)

Procedural AfD nomination. It was tagged for deletion per CSD G11, but I declined it. It's just an upcoming movie, with the only reference being a Facebook page, so I personally suspect that it doesn't meet GNG. Biblioworm 16:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to indicate notability at this time. I originally nominated for speedy deletion because it also looked to be like a promotion; I apologize if I got that wrong.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:TOOSOON.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:07, 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 nomination withdrawn JMHamo (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caparo plc[edit]

Caparo plc (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 death of the CEO does not make this company notable JMHamo (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It may be notable but I couldn't find any reliable sources other than the CEO's death and the fact they are going into administration. JMHamo (talk) 19:47, 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. KTC (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mindteck-Buchi Babu Invitation Tournament in 2005–06[edit]

Mindteck-Buchi Babu Invitation Tournament in 2005–06 (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 cricket tournament, no sources either Fenopy (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These two articles too may not be notable : Bradman Cup 20:20 Tournament 2005–06 and MRF Trophy in 2005–06... Fenopy (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons stated above:

Bradman Cup 20:20 Tournament 2005–06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MRF Trophy in 2005–06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please share your comments on all three articles. Fenopy (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Education Articles[edit]

List of Education Articles (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)

Pointless duplication of Category:Teaching. Bazj (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 15:09, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twinflix[edit]

Twinflix (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)

Questionably notable and improvable and even speedy and PROD material with the best search links here. Pinging tagger MuZemike and also video game users Czar, Comatmebro, Bovineboy2008, SoWhy, Esquivalience, Wizardman, NinjaRobotPirate, Flyer22 Reborn, SuperHamster, The1337gamer and Salvidrim. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delkeep - I can't justify voting to delete an article about a game that has any reviews in reliable sources, but this game only has one that I could find, so I'd be silly to advocate keeping. I'm conflicted.  · Salvidrim! ·  02:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:59, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Neigher[edit]

Rick Neigher (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)

self referenced. promotional Rathfelder (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article 6 years ago, I haven't looked at it in the last 5 years, and am now semi-retired and, being Australian, am very busy preparing my income tax return due next Monday. Given that the article has been there for 6 years, I don't see any need for a speedy deletion. If you hang on for a couple of weeks, I'll address the problems when I've finished with income tax. Cheers, 49.183.202.31 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No urgency.Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 19:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 19:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow the ip editor an opportunity to improve the article. Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 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. KTC (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lognoter[edit]

Lognoter (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 software, probably self-promoted, links are out of date or from the company, page has hardly been edited since creation in 2009 and is listed as an orphan U2fanboi (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:47, 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. KTC (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand Islands Playhouse[edit]

Thousand Islands Playhouse (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)

Very much like an advertisement. WP:NOTADVERTISING. Kernosky talk2me! 10:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:41, 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. KTC (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by WakuWaku Japan[edit]

List of programs broadcast by WakuWaku Japan (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 per Wikipedia:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Already deleted List of J-Horror films broadcast by WakuWaku Japan twice as per WP:Articles for deletion/List of J-Horror films broadcast by WakuWaku Japan, and this would reasonably fit under the same deletion rationale, but it was de-prodded by the article creator. Nymf (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Vickers-Jones[edit]

Giles Vickers-Jones (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)

Still questionably notable and improvable since the first AfD given that my searches only found this, this, this and this. Not only has this hardly been changed since, simply look at the first and only version the author ever made here. Pinging past commenters , Jll (although this one is not noticeably active), Graeme Bartlett, BabbaQ, JohnCD and also the usual users interested with this subject Onel5969, MichaelQSchmidt, Rms125a@hotmail.com and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:36, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Ballet Theatre 2010 Spring repertory[edit]

List of American Ballet Theatre 2010 Spring repertory (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)

Unclear why this season repertory would be especially notable enough to have its own article (only this incomplete one and the 2009 Fall one seem to exist). Every ballet, theatre, orchestra, ... has a season repertory, but most others don't have articles here.

Also nominated: List of American Ballet Theatre 2009 Fall repertory. Fram (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:35, 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. KTC (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of original programming by Telemundo Television Studios[edit]

List of original programming by Telemundo Television Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list seems irrelevant, first because it already exists; List of programs broadcast by Telemundo and List of telenovelas of Telemundo. Also many of the productions listed here are not originally from Telemundo Television Studios. Many are co-productions between Telemundo and other countries. I understand that Telemundo Television Studios is a company part of Telemundo, but this is not a TV channel, to create a list of their programs to air. And as I said before, there is already another list.

Also that this list should be deleted: List of telenovelas filmed in the United States. As the first seems irrelevant, there is also: List of programs broadcast by Univision and List of American telenovelas. Philip J Fry talk 07:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here also give this another list: List of original programming by Univision Television Studios. Another completely irrelevant list, where only see Televisa productions and some of Univision. But most non-Univision.--Philip J Fry talk 07:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:28, 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. KTC (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone International Schools[edit]

Keystone International Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a primary and middle school that fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (only teaches up to grade 8) and also has nothing to help it pass WP:GNG. It is titled "schools" and says there are city and urban campuses, so having a redirect to a partiuclar localtion's article may be difficult, especially since it doesn't tell us where it is located beyond "Istanbul". Perhaps list of international schools in Turkey would be a possible target? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:22, 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. KTC (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Stevens (Australian politician)[edit]

James Stevens (Australian politician) (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)

Political staffer, not an actual politician, who just barely passes GNG. The assertion of notability (being in a list of "top 50 influential South Australians") is pretty paltry. Does not look like anything in WP:POLITICIAN. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:14, 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 speedy redirect to The Last Woman Standing. KTC (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

剩者為王[edit]

剩者為王 (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)

To nominate, Chinese topic, no notabilities, a little advert, not obvious, make consensus. 333-blue 11:25, 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. KTC (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. Hickey[edit]

Patrick M. Hickey (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)

On notablility grounds. The article is effectively unsourced since all references are dead links. Even if they were active they are all to primary sources. High rank is not a claim to notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:03, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas T. Veblen[edit]

Thomas T. Veblen (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)

Declined WP:A7 speedy deletion: the rationle was "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."

In my opinion this is clearly incorrect, and I have edited the article to disprove this.

I see no reason to doubt the assertions made in this article that Professor Veblen is distinguished in his field. Nevertheless, the article in its current form would appear not to pass the WP:ACADEMIC guideline for notability.

Wikipedia, wrong or right, is a creature of the internet: "[https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Thomas+T.+Veblen About 9,230 results (0.40 seconds)"

As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(<winking to Stuart> Oh, come on, man— does anyone really understand how Google works?? I know I still do not! Tricky business, that!) KDS4444Talk
Actually, I have a PhD in Comp Sci, so to be honest I have a reasonable grasp of the basics. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion in a nation's top scientific academy, as this one is, has always been considered a pass of WP:PROF#C3. He's an honorary fellow rather than the more normal kind of fellow because he's based in the US but it's still as big an honor. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what the process is for becoming an "honorary fellow" of an org like the RSNZ? Because while becoming a straightforward fellow of the AAAS involves a rather involved application process including letters from sponsors and evidence of a lengthy publication history, I suspect that becoming an "honorary" fellow in a different country's Royal Society is a somewhat less stringent process and may perhaps not (by itself) qualify an individual as notable. In this instance, the fact that the subject WAS apparently elected a fellow of the AAAS is, by itself, evidence of notability (when I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion under CSD7 it did not include this information and my initial and admittedly cursory search for evidence of notability didn't turn it up). The Sauer Award, while not quite the same thing as a named chair or distinguished professor appointment and not apparently a notable award in its own right (so far), seems to solidify the subject's notability since it is a national award. I will take issue, however, with those who will assert a "speedy keep" on a claim of having "clearly passed" criterion PROF#C1— this criterion is deliberately vague, with no specific conditions or requirements, and a "speedy keep" on clearly having met it inspires more doubt than confidence in such a claim. One can "clearly meet" PROF C#5, #6, or #8, but I do not think the others should ever be invoked as "clear". "Apparent", yes; "clear", no. Finally, David, a "speedy keep" vote is (as I understand it) intended to signal a desire to close the discussion, not to express an emphatic desire to retain an article. The time for closure had probably not arrived when that vote was offered only two days into the discussion period and after only two other "keep" votes, yes? Just a thought. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 06:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most fellows of the RSNZ do not have articles, as per my work at Draft:List of fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand. I understand less of the honorary fellowship awards. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KDS4444: If I had meant "emphatic desire to retain an article" I would have said "strong keep" rather than "speedy keep". By "speedy keep" I mean something closer to "I'm not going to bother indicating how emphatic I am because the chance of a deletion outcome is too low for there to be any reason to worry that it will go a different way; let's just close up shop and spend our time and energy on discussions where the outcome is less obvious". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makhambet Kadeshov[edit]

Makhambet Kadeshov (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 NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:FPL, as clearly stated in the deletion rationale, there is no consensus that Kazakhstan is a fully professional league, therefore subject fails NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This circus again. First WP:FPL is an essay on notability and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. So basically, NFOOTY demands players play in "fully" professional league but REFUSES TO LIST ANY CRITERIA of what constitutes a fully professional league. The essay FPL also completely fails in any regard with NO CRITERIA. How can you have a guideline on notability with no criteria?! I've asked how many times for any specifics of examples what I need to find, what wording, from which source, from which governing body can confirm the KPL is a "fully" professional league in a language that does not use this phrase or any equivalent? They have the very clear terms: professional, semi-professional and amateur, but oh no, these distinctions are not enough! The ONLY example I've gotten was "uhhhhh well this article here says he's the only player in the league with another job, so that means it's fully professional." So basically, for the top league of professionals who by definition don't have other jobs (and who make way more playing football than the majority of the population) my best bet is to find a reliable source that reports the existence of one lone player who has decided to, for the hell of it, go find another job? This is laughable. Your true criteria appears to be, "Is it a country I can find on a map? Do I know those players? Yup I agree fully professional because I just know it is!" And you say, "there is no consensus that Kazakhstan [SIC] is a fully professional league" - maybe because there appears to be only ONE SINGLE reference to KPL in all of your talk archive going back 12 years? (And the one reference is a suggestion to add it and 10 other leagues!!) Is this really an acceptable standard? I am truly astonished at this level of incompetence and systemic bias determining notability for the world's most popular sport. МандичкаYO 😜 14:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you expect me to say. WP:FPL is an essay in itself, but it is also linked to as a notability criterion in WP:NSPORT so it is essentially a guideline and has been seen as such in countless AfDs for a number of years. The simple facts are as follows:
  1. enWiki operates on consensus.
  2. No consensus has been reached on Kazakhstan.
  3. This may be because no one has discussed it at length but that is irrelevant. Until consensus is reached the default position is a league is not fully professional.
  4. I note you have never attempted to commence any discussion around Kazakhstan, if you have sources you believe indicate full professionalism, please present them at WT:FPL. All leagues are sourced in the FPL listing so that should give you plenty of information as to what is likely to be accepted.
  5. Your focus on NFOOTY is also misguided. GNG is the most important criterion. I would be interested to understand how you would be able to claim that an individual who has played twice in their entire career could be notable under GNG. Where has the short career of this player been discussed in depth?
Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 16:03, 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 Withdrawn by nominator, as per below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All My Life (album)[edit]

All My Life (album) (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 album is an unofficial release. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 06:48, 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. KTC (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergy Antony[edit]

Sergy Antony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST, citations provided not independent or are trivial mentions Appable (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 07:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 07:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:37, 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 merge to Firefly Role-Playing Game. The only real consensus here is that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. Giving the nod to merge instead of delete per WP:ATD -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts In the Black[edit]

Ghosts In the Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about Video game released by company based in Wisconsin. Prod was removed without giving any reason. Google search shows that this Video game fails WP:GNG. Human3015TALK  21:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have to provide independent reliable sources. Yes, I should have not nominated it so early, thats why I proded it but you removed prod without adding any sources, I have nominated it for AfD only after searching for sources and I have not found any source. You can provide sources for your claims.--Human3015TALK  22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:37, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE KTC (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of international Winx Club voice actors[edit]

List of international Winx Club voice actors (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:TVINTL Wikipedia is not a television guide. It does not need to list every country's variant of cast listings. The voice actors for Italian and English are good enough for this Wikipedia, and for other Wikis, they can use their own localized language listing. There is no precedent to list voice actors from all countries for other television show localizations. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only notable voice acting page I've found so far was Non-English versions of The Simpsons, but that one discusses and detail the show as presented in other countries, with some sourcing. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why deleting? This articel is made in 2012. Why delete it after 3 years and why not in that year? And not every other language wiki mention it all there voice actors.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 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 redirect to 1968 NFL draft. (non-admin closure) p.p. Kharkiv07 (T) 21:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1968 American Football League draft[edit]

1968 American Football League draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic is more thoroughly covered in 1967 NFL draft. Proposal to rename that article is discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1967 American Football League draft See that discussion for more complete background. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deejayk: I suggest you ask Jenks24, the administrator who closed the related AfD for the 1967 AFL Draft article, to close this one too. After three weeks, there is no serious opposition to either of these AfD redirect/rename proposals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deejayk: Though there are sometimes reasons to have separate AfDs, consider in the future combining AfDs of multiple articles per WP:MULTIAFD. This seems to have been a prime candidate in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timea Nagy (activist)[edit]

Timea Nagy (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is not enough to establish notability other then her connection to the famous Tara Teng Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh no of course. There Teng is. In fact, this particular article is a real link fest for many of the other articles that have shown up at Afd. Again, though, Neelix has done a lot of good work, too. And notable organizations or people should be judged on their own merits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this edit where an IP is claiming to be the subject and blanking most of the article for the safety of her family. Of course only a full delete will get rid of this information. Continuing to have this article is revictumization of this person. [17] Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is rather worrying, but the post is old. I do feel we should be flexible, though, in removing some content like this when requested in exceptional circumstances. The encyclopaedia would not suffer from the removal of this article. I feel that having a BLP for a (relatively unknown) victim of crime is invasive and does constitute victimisation. However, it may be true that Nagy no longer feels this way (if it definitely was her/her family posting in 2013). AusLondonder (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really add anything but you can check out this story on her press conference in Toronto, last month. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, KEEP but let's trim it down at least. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Vintage Feminist - As a member of WP:WikiProject Feminism I can assure you that I would oppose such a thing and I do not believe it to be occurring. AusLondonder (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've seen the ANI that User:Rhododendrites mentioned now. I still think the AfD net has been thrown a bit wide on this one though. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics Olympiad[edit]

Ethics Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be enough information here that the material could be rewritten I suppose, however before we get to that the issue of whether the article should exist needs to be settled. At issue is the promotional writing style and questionable copyright status (I check the copyright violation reporting page, it supposedly came from a copyleft source which makes it acceptable). TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article should exist, not as a promotion but in the same way as other similar competitions exist as Wikipedia articles this article should also exist. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_Bowl & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mathematical_Olympiad

I am an academic and have authored the Ethics Olympiad article which covers the early stages of this competition. It is now well established and while the article needs work it deserves some encyclopedic recognition. The writing style can be reworked and I welcome any advise that the editors would like to provide. In terms of copyright the material is not copied and pasted from any other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talkcontribs) 11:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been rewritten substantially with each submission and it was submitted most recently, not to bypass the process of review but because I was not able to submit it in any other way. Duff Beers and SmartSE's tone betray bad faith and poor editorial process. Rather than offering assistance in improving the article their simple and destructive mantra is "delete" "delete". "an editor is here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content, and to provide constructive input into communal discussions and processes aimed at improving the project and the quality of our content" (Wiki NOTHERE). Sydney59 (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC) How is this article promotional material? It simply states the facts of the event and provides independent references to substantiate the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talkcontribs) 12:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to draft. Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard May (environmental advocate)[edit]

Richard May (environmental advocate) (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)

Blatant self promotion, no indication of meeting any bio guideline John from Idegon (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expandingon one of Cyphoidbomb finds, see Fly Rod & Reel magazine, Volume 11 Number 5 - November/December 1989 including cover photo. Troutfella (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that Troutfella has identified himself as the subject of this article. As such, he should be viewed as having a strong conflict of interest, and we should treat his assertions of media coverage with some caution... which is unfortunate at this case, as I suspect Fly Rod & Reel is not the easiest magazine to find an archive of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Troutfella has been pretty forthcoming with the fact that this article is about him. I've directly recommended to him that he not edit the article because of a COI, and from his most recent comment to me, it looks like he's going to be in New Zealand for the next month, so the article is likely to get deleted anyway. On his talk page, I've raised the point with him that he needs to demonstrate significant coverage of he, himself, the man. If he were to provide either in this discussion or on the article's talk page, sufficient indication that he received significant coverage from reliable sources that demonstrated he was notable, surely we would strongly consider inclusion. His best work was presumably done at a time when the Internet was virtually nonexistent, so the best references for him would almost certainly be found in the difficult-to-locate world of print publications. Thankfully, we have The Reference Desk which is presumably populated with users who may have access to the very titles we need, such that we may not have to entirely discount the subject's loose references. We may want to perform a little extra diligence here, and if not, then when Richard comes back in a month, perhaps he can invest some time to research quality references so that we aren't tasked with that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here is a reliable source for the claim the FR&R awarded him Angler of the Year in '89. I'll leave it to others to judge the degree that that establishes notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One award is almost never a guarantee of inclusion. "Multiple" of any significant attention is usually the benchmark. So, if the subject could demonstrate multiple significant award wins, we would be ethically obligated to consider the possibility that he is notable. Again, coverage, coverage, coverage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An award, if it's the right kind of award, crosses a bright line of notability seen in WP:ANYBIO. I'm not saying that Angels of the Year qualifies as that sort of award... but that he won the award makes it likely that the described cover feature also took place. And inclusion in the Hall of Fame can also be seen as recognition, but I've not looked into the granting institution to see if they carry weight. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 2010, by their own story here, the magazine only had a circulation of 45,000. An award from a magazine with that small a circulation certainly wouldn't be the right kind of award you speak of. John from Idegon (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if not, an accompanying article would be one key point toward satisfying WP:BASIC. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft space would be better than in my User space. I'm only here as an observer in my gnome admin capacity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 21:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piano rock[edit]

Piano rock (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 previously stated, piano rock is not a genre, so this can only mean a rock song with a piano. See previous nominations, too. Please note: previous AfDs were both delete.Richhoncho (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Rock 'N' Roll Piano
  2. The Everything Rock & Blues Piano Book
  3. Rock Piano: For Beginning to Advanced Students
  4. Progressive Rock Piano
  5. The Best of Rock 'n' Roll Piano
  6. Discovering Rock Piano
  7. Rock Piano: Professional Know-how of Contemporary Keyboard-playing
  8. The Total Rock Keyboardist
  9. Improvising Rock Piano
  10. Rock Around the Piano

The topic therefore passes the general notability guide. It's obviously a popular form used by artists such as Jerry Lee lewis and Elton John and so seems as sensible a musical topic as jazz piano or the piano concerto. Andrew D. (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnxxxxsp (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC

I checked the Piano blues article, and saw a list of pianists, who were described as playing in the following genres; Boogie-woogie, stride, Chicago etc, so perhaps that article should be renamed List of blues pianists...? AS for other comments, there is acoustic music, but not acoustic guitar or guitar rock! There is a reason. As for what is in the French & Italian Wiki... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:RS. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 05:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE KTC (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Piano[edit]

Vic Piano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources for this article. The article alleges that the subject has died, but there is a linkedin page for (apparently) the same person which indicates that he is alive:https://www.linkedin.com/pub/vic-piano/10/29/425. If so, this article should also be judged by WP:BLP, which it fails to comply with. David.thompson.esq (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:47, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lifesimmer[edit]

Lifesimmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable internet celebrity. A search for reliable coverage only results in at most brief mentions or coverage from non-reliable sources. PROD with the same rationale was removed by article creator. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:46, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Welker[edit]

Jennifer Welker (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 filmmaker, SPA-written article. Sources are PR-interviews for the movie and external links to some of her project sites. Google search found no in-depth coverage. The listed awards seem to be minor (and not really "awards" strictly speaking). Notes: There is apparently a second "Jennifer Welker", a former nurse and jewelry designer, taking up some Google hits. Also, some article information was deleted in October 2014 by an IP (including a mention of a second project). GermanJoe (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:46, 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. With several people having commented, every one of them supporting deletion, and the discussion having been open for two weeks, there is perfectly clear consensus, and I cannot imagine why anyone would think there was any point in relisting again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talkcontribs)

Koushani Mukherjee[edit]

Koushani Mukherjee (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)

Was CSD deleted for A7 reasons, then recreated, and now I'm here to see if the community thinks that the article should kept or axed. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst 05:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:59, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi River Ontario: Recreational Whitewater Paddling[edit]

Mississippi River Ontario: Recreational Whitewater Paddling (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)

Wikipedia is not a guide. A page like this seems much better suited to Wikivoyage or Wikitravel. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 01:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:56, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanians in France[edit]

Lithuanians in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. This is one of many "X people in France" articles created by a single editor and their SOCKS. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghumen. JbhTalk 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 14:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Rigsofrods (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:SYNTH. Are there any RS actually saying this is a significant population? As near as I can tell this is just another article created by a banned SockMaster. JbhTalk 20:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Emile[edit]

Jonathan Emile (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)

Why the page should be deleted

This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion. The first time it was deleted, but it's back. It fails notability.

I've reviewed the sources - nearly all are dead links (if they were ever actual links, impossible to say). The few that remain are press releases, non-news sites, promotional bills, etc.

The first Album (2008) created by this artist, was published by Mind Peace Love, a label created by Emile which make it self published. Similarly, his second "studio album", The Lover/Fighter Document LP (2015) was also produced by his label has only its iTunes store listing as a source. There are no reliable sources referring to it.

My best guess is this is a vanity page for an aspiring but not-notable artist.Mattnad (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  01:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  01:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  01:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  01:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using the musician notability criteria, do you think even a weak keep works? It would seem he's notable (if at all) because a more famous person participated with him on one track. That's thin to me.Mattnad (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems the dead links need to be replaced by active ones. There are many credible sources. He is notable. Many secondary sources, significant coverage, there are multiple contributors and the sources available are reliable. Why don't you go ahead and add some -- are you fishing? The original deletion request is from 2008. Michig JusticeBlack (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michig. I have incorporated some of the sources you mentioned in the article including from Vice, XXL, The Montreal Gazette and CTV Global News. These are very important and extremely credible sources to consider before deleting such an article. I don't look at deletion requests as negative as they create new incentives to improve on an article in a bid to keep it. werldwayd (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this on the basis of all the keeps were socks except one weak keep. However, that was mistaken. SpinningSpark 13:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 13:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:14, 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. KTC (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JIRC[edit]

JIRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AfD was actually an archaic Votes for Deletion discussion back in 2004. Notability guidelines were not well established at that time. jIRC was/is a fairly obscure IRC client and is several years defunct. Fails the software notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  04:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  04:39, 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 redirect to List of Singaporeans. (non-admin closure) Yash! 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Singapore[edit]

List of people from Singapore (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)

Repeated article. same article as List of Singaporeans Krazio (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  04:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  04:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  04:46, 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Today (Nina Sky album)[edit]

Starting Today (Nina Sky album) (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 album that was never released. Koala15 (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst 07:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst 07:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst 07:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CLear cut delete it never happened Legacypac (talk) 11:13, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cavan Senior Football Championship[edit]

2013 Cavan Senior Football Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NSEASONS. this is purely a sports results listing . and this is not the top Gaelic football league. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:50, 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.