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.  Sandstein  20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Mkrtchyan[edit]

Edgar Mkrtchyan (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he has played in the Armenian Premier League. Since this league is not confirmed as fully pro (see WP:FPL), this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gor Poghosyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - Players fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - per nom Spiderone 17:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Catania[edit]

Charles Catania (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; sources are either press releases or passing mentions that do not cover Catania in any detail. Was prodded for that reason, prod removed without improvement. Huon (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILL and WP:POLITICIAN. We are not a web host for political consultants. There are about 530 campaigns for congress and senate every two years; by definition, more than half of which will lose. Being a campaign manager of such a campaign does not magically grant notability, and is, in fact, for the most part totally mundane. For a campaign manager to get notability, we've had a very high standard. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found some links but certainly not enough to suggest better improvement and notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both - searches didn't turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Google brings up tons of sources & books so it's clearly a notable subject, The article does however need some improving (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travel clinic[edit]

Travel clinic (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)

Dictionary article with little relevant content. Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable concept with lots of potential sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this seems acceptable and with no urgent need of deletion. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:DGG. (Non-admin closure) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Yadav[edit]

Vishal Yadav (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 state notability. Charlie the Pig (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. No claim of notability, appears to be an autobiography. --Finngall ^talk 20:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and Ecological Interactions Worldwide[edit]

Economic and Ecological Interactions Worldwide (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:NOTJOURNAL, WP:NOTESSAY. This looks like a journal article or a thesis paper that was just pasted into article space, but I wasn't able to find any copyvio. If this is an important topic (Google suggests that it might be), I think the best approach would be WP:TNT. shoy (reactions) 19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Content seems either original or a copyright violation and is by the way some sort of papper/essay as the nominator said. –Lappspira (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-constructive, non-encyclopedic. The basic premise is pollution hurts the planet. The analysis seems to be by process, which is a useful approach. --Bejnar (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This current version is simply unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a clear example of WP:ISNOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNU PDF[edit]

GNU PDF (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 GNU PDF project is dead; it no longer has a website and there has been no development for years. The project never produced any notable software. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What you say is true. There is no there there. GangofOne (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The Free Software Foundation ref is a press release and not independent. A search turned up additional Free Software Foundation content, and this linux.com article but no other significant WP:RS coverage. As above, this project is defunct so future significant coverage is highly unlikely.Dialectric (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notwithstanding the relevant guideline (WP:Notability_does_not_degrade_over_time), this never seems to have been notable, and its only reference is it being discontinued.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing to show it passes notability guidelines. Only alternative would be to merge to the GNU article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Spurious AfD by what appears to be a disgruntled user. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DistroWatch[edit]

DistroWatch (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)

Creating AfD for new user. Will let them fill in the details Primefac (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Though I’ll certainly admit that the article is very poorly sourced, the subject receives a fair amount of coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and is often cited by third parties ([5], [6], and [7]). It also seems to be well known and respected in the Linux users community, based on my small amount of research. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging Watch007 - you wanted this page nominated, and it would be good if you could explain why. If you do not reply, I will assume you do not want it nominated anymore and will withdraw the nomination. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article may not have many reliable sources in it, but as Non-Dropframe points out, the website is very notable especially within the Linux/BSD community and there are sources to back that up... they're just not in the article right now. :P Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment found on the article talk page from the new user/nominator as follows: "All the references don't make sense I would like a Speedy delete. Its all self promotional references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watch007 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC) " --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete the page should provide more proof in references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watch007 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watch007 Hi there! I'm going to recommend you familiarize yourself further with the deletion policy before you nominate any more pages for deletion. An article lacking references isn't an acceptable deletion rationale. The subject is notable even if the sources fail to demonstrate this and therefore the article will almost certainly be kept. You may wish to consider withdrawing your nomination. If I can be of further help, let me know here or on my talk page. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per sources located by Non-Dropframe, I also note that the magazine is published in 14 different languages. It appears to me that it would have been just as easy to improve the article as it was to nominate for AfD in this case. -- 009o9 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Overall, though the trend is towards keep as the article was being edited. Can be renominated if still considered problematic in the current state.  Sandstein  20:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transphotographiques[edit]

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

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

A search for English language sources only came up with WP:ROUTINE mentions; no in depth coverage found. NE Ent 01:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article makes no claim on behalf of the subject for encyclopedic notability. English language coverage appears to be run of the mill. Subject appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. More broadly the article fails WP:V. Am open to reconsideration if better reliable source coverage (possibly in French?) is uncovered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added references from The Daily Telegraph, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Libération and Chanel. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Changing !vote based on improvements made in the article and sourcing. However while the number of sources has increased sharply, I am generally unimpressed by their overall quality. Most are little more than a paragraph and I am not seeing much in the form of "in depth" coverage called for by the guidelines. Broadly speaking I think the coverage could be described as shallow and run of the mill. Still I think there is enough, if only barely, to give the benefit of the doubt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lengthier articles of those used are these, Ad Orientem: 'From Classic to Transphotographiques', 'In Lille, Clashes over Palestine', 'On Nature, and the Nature of Photography', 'Fashion shows his photographs in Lille', 'Territory and Landscape hollow to Transphotographiques', 'Kolekcja Transphotographiques'. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm the one who (inadvertantly) brought this one to NE Ent's attention, after stumbling upon in whilst Random page patrolling. Anyway, if I was braver, I would have nominated it for AfD myself. In any case, I'll just go with "delete, as per Ad Orientem", but add that I fear this article may also be a covert attempt at promotion of the subject matter using Wikipedia as the vehicle. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although some additional effort has been made as to improving the article, I still do not see it as something that rises to the level of depth and importance to have a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found nothing better than this, this and this. Feel free to draft and userfy, SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1. But SisterTwister, your (or anyone's) citing of "this, this and this" is meaningless to anybody else, thanks to our wildly differing filter bubbles. Yes, it does seem that there's not so much on the web about Transphotographiques, but that isn't the way to demonstrate it. ¶ 2. Hmm, interesting subject, Transphotographiques. Let's see what we can find about it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Started as a wonky translation of a feeble article at fr:Wikipedia, nominated for deletion as such; since then quite transformed by Lopifalko. (I wonder what NE Ent, IJBall, Kierzek and SwisterTwister think.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC) ... PS and Ad Orientem too. (Sorry for the accidental omission.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I know I lack the skill set to evaluate French language sources and was unable to find English languages sources that indicate notability. NE Ent 10:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does The Daily Telegraph mention even do that? – Does being included in a list of international photography festivals get you a wikipedia page?... I guess I'm still not seeing what's so particularly notable about this festival that it should be included in an encyclopedia. What do the French references say?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Google Translate is your friend IJBall. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It now has plenty of refs that demonstrate coverage year-after-year in various notable national broadsheet newspapers (plus Chanel thrown in for good measure!). -Lopifalko (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Bulk and quality are of course only loosely correlated; the mere fact that this article now has about four times as many bytes as it did immediately before the AfD template was added to it does not prove that it's better. However, it certainly is very different now from how it was then. And since Lopifalko mentioned the addition of sources in Le Monde, Libération, and others, it has come to cite additional sources (going well beyond mere mentions) in Le Soir, La Voix du Nord and more. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article now has close to six times as many bytes as it did immediately before deletion was proposed. Again, this simple fact does not imply that it's better, let alone that it's six times better. But it certainly is different. I've a hunch that there's enough material about the subject in Polish alone to demonstrate Wikipedia-style notability; but I don't read Polish and (except for extremely limited purposes) don't trust Google Translate or similar. ¶ I note that NE Ent proposed (above) that the article should be deleted because A search for English language sources only came up with WP:ROUTINE mentions; no in depth coverage found. This is ambiguous: Does it mean that no in depth coverage in English was found, or that none in any language was found? If the former, I hadn't been aware that this was a reason for deletion. If the latter, here's a tip: Go to Transphotographiques' what's-on-this-website page, and for each year's festival, click "Presse" (which as you may guess is French for "press"). You'll see lots of press tearsheets. There's very little in English, for some reason. (I can speculate why not, but this isn't the place.) Now, in general it's undesirable to cite sources as they are reproduced within the website of a company, person, festival etc that benefits from these: they may have been adulterated or mocked up. ¶ Worse, this website is rather crappy, with dud links (links that when clicked don't lead anywhere), and META NAME="Keywords" whose "content" includes nu, charme, glamour [...] nude, [...] lingerie, [...] lingerie, nu, [...] nude, [...] fille, [...] girl, [...] nu, [...] erotisme, femme, corps, [...] glamour, nu, nue, nude, photos, fille -- and that's their repetition, not mine. Possibly search engines infer, reasonably enough, that the whole enterprise is spammy and therefore kick its content down the hitlist -- and anyway, text within JPEGs can't be indexed. ¶ Regardless of the quality of the website surrounding them, we do have plenty of JPEGs of newspaper articles. I suggest that a festival whose website dared fake newspaper content (substituting words, misattributing, creating out of whole cloth) would soon find itself in deep doodoo indeed, and thus that these JPEGs are pretty trustworthy. Anyway, the article now has a fair number of sources that are independent of the website. ¶ NE Ent later added the comment I know I lack the skill set to evaluate French language sources and was unable to find English languages sources that indicate notability. I wonder why somebody unable to evaluate French language sources would nominate for deletion an article the majority of whose sources are likely to be in French, and why, realizing that there are indeed what appear to be sources in French, this person would continue to object to the article on the grounds that sources in English couldn't be found. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC) ........typo fixed Hoary (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for NE Ent. The article now has almost ten times as many bytes as it did immediately before you, NE Ent, nominated it for deletion because "no in depth coverage found". (Not that this necessarily means that it's better. Please judge its improvement, if any, for yourself.) Well, here are the hits that Google finds for Transphotographiques in just a single newspaper, La Voix du Nord. Now, "other crap exists" is famously an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but permit me to ask a question. In your opinion, how does the Transphotographiques article now stack up against, say, the article on Belvoir Media Group? -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated above, the matter has gotten more than tangential mentions in terms of reliable source coverage. Maybe it doesn't pass the bar by much, comparatively speaking, but I think it does. Notability is a topic that crosses different languages. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After the relisting that was performed to ensure fairness in the discussion process, consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)[edit]

Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim) (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)

Torso found in 1960 in state of advanced decomposition and unable to be identified. No WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources beyond initial 1960 news article. Google search and Google news search return no relevant links.

Other Unidentified Persons Database reference contains no details that meet WP:GNG. Third linked ref is independent, non-law enforcement volunteer site which does not meet WP:RS.

Victim was toddler or young child when murdered and at time of murder was not notable for anything else. WP:NOTNEWS. AldezD (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep - NOTNEWS does not apply here. Clearly notable. Per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Better sourcing could be an option though. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This nomination is spiteful and frivolous. This article was patrolled when it was created and found to be acceptable for Wikipedia. AldezD has done some good work on the wiki but at times he gives the impression of being on a personal crusade, imposing his views. I would hesitate to call him a troll but... Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: There’s a WP:ANI thread relevant to this comment. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I recently uncovered several more resources giving information for the victim and planned to update it when I got the chance. I feel the case meets sourcing requirements as the presence of primary and secondary currently are used in the article and more will soon be added.The Doe Network does have law enforcement background and even has members that are liaisons/officers of law enforcement facilities. This AFD seems rushed, in my opinion. No need to get too carried away. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I was not canvassed, as I have made significant contributions to the article itself and other related topics. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 20:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reformat to event article She wasn't even an entire corpse, just a torse. At least as far as anyone here knows. Of course, she used to be a person, but nothing she did during that time was worth a mention, let alone significant coverage. Jane Doe's body parts turn up all the time, and while I appreciate the clever nickname separating her from the rest, that nickname doesn't help her notability case a bit. See nobody for details. The hubbub got some attention, but she did essentially nothing. Not a real biography. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When her identity becomes known, we can rename it "Murder of ...", as we did with Caledonia Jane Doe, and a couple of other recently-identified UIDs. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world, we'd wait to see if she was murdered, too. We don't even know the cause of death, let alone the manner. "Little Miss Nobody case" would cover everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it could be "Death of ..." if any determination of the cause of death does not state that it's a homicide. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes LMN buried herself in that creek bed. ("...the bullet, like drove itself into my gut...") Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burying a body isn't killing a person (unlawfully or otherwise). Maybe she ate some bad tuna, her parents freaked out because social workers warned them about that tuna, they swept her under the rug and told the state she went to live on a farm with her grandparents. Or something entirely different, but still not murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I just added more information from the resources I had saved previously (more than doubling the amount prior to the AFD), the cause of the girl's death was never determined. However, authorities expressed suspicions of foul play and some of the sources stated it was murder. Notably, Bella Bond was found in a garbage bag and remained unidentified until last week. Her death cause was never determined but officials went ahead and stated it was homicide, as well as the allegations made by Bella's mother that her boyfriend has punched the girl until she died.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're going with the Bella Bond thing, but yeah, it's definitely suspicious. People suspected foul play in the Salish Sea human foot discoveries, too. It's human nature to not think of bad fish eating us. We blame our neighbours instead. But suspicion doesn't make something real enough for an article title. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Where exactly is it stated that only the torso of the victim was found? As far as I've read, it was determined that the child had teeth that were well-cared for and that she had painted her toenails. NAMUS profile states "all parts recovered." --GouramiWatcher^(?) 00:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it from the nominator, just sort of assumed it was true. My bad. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His story about SIGCOV seems to check out, though. A local (partial) skeleton. Two steps below Mountain Meadow Massacre remains and four below Romanov cremains. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most people today outside Philadelphia wouldn't recognise the Boy in the Box but he still gets an article. People publicised LMN throughout the freaking USA in 1960 trying to give her her name back. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying and failing, evidently. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So not only is this AFD spiteful and frivolous, the nominator didn't even get the facts right. What a Mickey Mouse operation he is. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, as much as I know how frustrating it is to get an article AFD'ed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Stevik (3rd nomination) is a good example) it's best to stay away from comments like this. It could only make the situation worse.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 00:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm just increasingly frustrated with AldezD. Forgive me. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, any unidentified-decedent case that makes national news, whenver, is inherently notable IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it count as "making national news" if several papers in various American places run the same AP story? That's all I'm seeing (white shorts, checkered blouse, leather sandals). Could be missing something big, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question first, the copycat/herd mentality nature of corporate media is used quite often to justify recentist piffle, even when the end result amounts to a WP:BLP1E violation. I have no real opinion on the article, but rather wanted to say something about this topic in general. I came across Wikipedia's coverage of unidentified murder victims through work on Robert Hansen. The tone conferred through this coverage suggests that Wikipedia is being used as a venue for advocacy on the issue. For that reason alone, I would be suspicious of anything I see on here in this topic area. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most (if not all) articles on this topic on Wikipedia are added only when there is a reasonable amount of information available on the case and if there is some level of prominence to the public. Users that have created these pages know this. Otherwise Wikipedia would look more like The Doe Network, the Unidentified Wikia or NamUs with thousands of short, stubby articles. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 05:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The Huffington Post still lists her in 2015 as one of "9 Murder Victims Whose Names Remain a Mystery". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The deletion proposal is based strictly on the claim of non-notability. However, the notability criteria are all satisfied: The entry's subject has been given significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources, which are independent of the subject. This Wikipedia entry easily passes the N-test. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a widely covered instance of unidentified victim/unsolved murder that passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Is it still widely covered when we count all the AP articles as one?

Anyway, according to this other AP story, another "Little Miss Nobody" was buried right beside this one, thirty years later. We don't have Francine Meegan, but she could make for a third paragraph in the Burial section here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment spreading via the Associated Press is the pre-Internet equiv of "Baby Doe"'s case spreading like wildfire in the Internet Age. I'm old enough to remember when afternoon newspapers still had some life in them and i know it's hard for some editors to remember what things were like before they changed with the Internet Age. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The newswires are still alive and well in this modern day. Still count as one source. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've just realised that the last edit to the Little Miss Nobody article or talk page before AldezD called this AFD was mine, over a month after the last edit to the article. Either it's a big coincidence or AldezD is stalking my edits, checking what contributions i am making. That alone, if true, should get him reprimanded. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with checking someone's edit history. It's all as public as the edits are. Hounding is another story. I just creeped your contributions and notice you said the same thing at the administrator's noticeboard, except you also want this AfD thrown out for this. That gameplan is pretty much doomed; if you want the article kept, just wait. I'm only objecting to the lack of notability for the record. I don't expect it to change the outcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just increasing frustrated with his behaviour. I'm sorry. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your frustration leads to his behaviour (or alters the way you perceive his behaviour). Heather O'Rourke once said talking about things makes them happen, and she seems to be the root of this problem. Rather than apologize to me, who you haven't wronged, maybe try apologizing to and forgiving your enemy instead. Who better could use it? Might help settle the disruptions. Or maybe I'm a delusional hippie. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nomination claims that subject fails WP:GNG. There are sufficient WP:RS to establish that the subject passes WP:GNG. This is not an example of WP:NOTNEWS - this is not a news report.--Jersey92 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: Article creator WP:CANVASSED for AFD: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. AldezD (talk)

It was *not* WP:CANVASSing. to quote Daniel Case on my talk page "I just warned you because it could be used in the AfD to discredit a keep consensus (although in this case I genuinely think you weren't trying to do that)". Plus, all the people i notified had the following apply to them:

Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Editors known for expertise in the field

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your note Whether someone has been canvassing in respect of this RfC or not is entirely irrelevant to the RfC, since all opinions stand on their own merit. If you believe that someone, e.g. PBA, has been canvassing, there are appropriate forums to which you should address this. The Wikipedia administrator who will eventually decide upon this RfC is not the party responsible for deciding on the charge of canvassing. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: User also undid my edits twice three times notifying closing admin of AFD that page creator had WP:CANVASSed. [14], [15], [16]. One edit summary by user is "don't irritate me" AldezD (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The third diff given in the above note was a removal of the note itself. The WP:CANVASS notification was only removed twice. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to withdraw from this AfD. It is obvious that even keeping to Wikipedia policy on who to notify in WP:CANVASS is being held against me and AldezD is happy to use "exact words" of Wikipedia policies to achieve his goals. I'm burnt out. I faced this before, when WP was faced with left wing editors determined to WP:OWN Soviet-related articles. I'm just plain burnt out. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edited to add): definitely burnt out. I thought Little Miss Nobody was as notable as say Sheree Beasley and Karmein Chan are here in Australia. Maybe i was wrong. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an impartial observation, but at this point there are no “delete” votes, and there are “keep” votes from editors who were not directly notified. Doesn’t seem on track for deletion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is sort of a delete vote. Burn the biography, raise an event article. Essentially would have the same content, but she's indisputably not notable for anything she did as a person. Other people's discovery of her corpse at least touches the "notable enough" line. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I was not canvassed. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sorry to rain on the parade, but this is a fairly classic example of a true crime story — unidentified remains from 50 years ago, victim's age unknown, case unsolved. Lots of media coverage at the time and another round of coverage of the fact that this is an old unsolved case. That does not an encyclopedia article make. NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL, and NOTPOLICEBLOTTER are the relevant guidelines. I would urge that this be held open another week to see what a truly random selection of community members feel about the notability here as this feels very much like a packed jury. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have indeed been asked by Paul Benjamin Austin to participate in the discussion and his invitation was clearly meant to have me "support" his position for the article to stay up. Having said that, let me state that there is no way on earth that I would be swayed by any such invitation, whether to support or oppose something. I make up my own mind and, in fact, it would've pleased me a great deal to go against the intentions of the editor who invited me over! But the facts, in my view, are clearly in favor of letting the article stay up. Which is what shaped my position; nothing else did. If there is a "packed jury" I am not part of it. Let me end by saying that this is the first interaction I had with this particular editor in all my years in Wikipedia. Cheers - and, people, loosen up, will you? -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some of you may have noticed I moved the page to not presume murder. It's a good guess, but that's all it is. This title allows for any possible future eureka moment. Hope that's alright by you humans and doesn't screw up the way this is listed for any computers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have prefferred if it would have taken place after the AfD was over, but it's good to be bold.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 16:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is shaping up to be a replay of the now closed RfC about whether or not "murder" signifies "murderer". Let's please don't. Here's the consensus of the competent authorities: "Investigators at the scene...observed that the individual or individuals responsible for the burial had possibly made several attempts to dig different graves for the body, as disturbances in the sand near the body suggested. ... Her cause of death was never successfully determined by medical examiners. Police guessed she had been murdered, given the circumstances of the crime scene." I would kindly ask InedibleHulk to revert his edit. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. "Police guessed she had been murdered...". Their guess remains as good as anyone's, and a guess is a pretty flimsy thing to hang an article title on, especially when the new disambiguator is 100% true and inclusive (this whole thing's a cold case), far more concise and doesn't frame this as a biography (lacking any biographical info).

Not sure what that first quote was supposed to mean here. How someone died has no bearing on how many tries it takes to dig a grave. That's up to the ground quality and your tools. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that the opinion of the police carries the same weight as "anyone's"? Is it perhaps in your plans to strike off the criteria for reliable sources? Are we going to have, at long last, total relativism in this world of ours? This is getting interesting, if not downright amusing. -The Gnome (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since this AfD started, you made nine (9) changes to the article, most of them in relation to the very nature of the case, which, as it happens, is directly linked to this AfD. This is not "being "being bold" but, to put it mildly, bad form. -The Gnome (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the case is it's unsolved. It's certainly not a murder case, even presuming police can guess better than anyone. And most of them were grammar and wordiness edits. The most substantial bit was attributing the vague "It is believed" to the police, instead of say, anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been gently reminded that Wikipedia does recognize that some parties' "opinions" or "guesses" carry far more weight than others'. The former are reliable sources and the latter, well, they are not. Yet, you're keen to re-write or ignore Wikipedia's rules, which is what makes you write: "...even presuming police can guess better than anyone". There is no "presuming" to be made, sir. That is utter nonsense. -The Gnome (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say the police guessed it was murder. That's all. And the article relays that just fine. There was no murder investigation, because the coroner couldn't tell whether to check the "Homicide" box. If that proper authority had, then the police guess would start carrying weight. But as things actually turned out, that's as far as we still know, despite the best guesses of Sergeant Joe and Average Joe. It's a thrilling 0-0 tie, during which time the people who actually knew probably died mysteriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is anything but "thrilling" is this tiresomely maniacal effort to "keep Wikipedia from judging" anything. In reality, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a judge of anyone or anything; it merely reflects what's out there, in the context of third-party, reliable sources. Here's what might be confusing you: The entry's text currently reads, "The police guessed [etc]". But police departments and especially American ones have rarely if ever used the word "guess" in regards to their assessments, either as a noun or as a verb, in their official statements. Which means that the loaded term "guess", on which you are trying to anchor an argument, is either the term used by the newspaper (on an impossible to read facsimile), or more probably one chosen by a careless Wikipedia editor. To recap: Police assessments do not carry the same weight as "anyone's", at least not in the context of Wikipedia editing, despite what you might think. They carry way more weight! And what we have coming out of the competent, responsible police department is that this is a murder case whether we like that or not, and whether we agree with that or not. Please, make an effort to understand how Wikipedia works. -10:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I just found an online version of the news article. Turns out the headline was wrong, and the story doesn't mention guessing or murder. Just police appealing for clues. So there you go. It does call this the "Little Miss Nobody case", oddly enough. I can't find a single thing saying this ever became a murder case. Have you? The DoeNetwork lists only the medical examiner under "Investigating agencies". Why'd you quote "keeping Wikipedia from judging"? I didn't say that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rome one doesn't mention murder, either. So I've removed the "presuming" and "guessed" bits. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it make more sense to refer to the article simply as Death of Little Miss Nobody? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty good, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The past is truly a different country. Riley Ann Sawyers got Baby Grace, while LMN got a Jane Withers movie title. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The case is notable and was revisited as recently as August 25, 2015, by the Huffington Post.[17] Per my reading of WP:CRIME this meets item #1. Since this is an article about a notable crime and not a biography, I find those delete arguments specious. Additionally, WP:NOTNEWS (N/A hardly breaking news and still receives coverage 55 years later), WP:NOTMEMORIAL (N/A since nobody knows who she is) and WP:NOTPOLICEBLOTTER (N/A is not a thing) are too far of a stretch to delete an article about a notable event. BTW: I was not canvassed, I stumbled on to the discussion from AfD Today-- 009o9 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per significant coverage over the years, similar to other non-identified decedents. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated above, this is a case that didn't just 'come and go' decades ago. Further interest has remained in reliable sources, with the Huffington Post commenting on it more recently. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient coverage at the time and later to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to multiple examples of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, spanning decades of time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else. Notability is consistent. Versus001 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As someone above noted Hufftington Post even touched on it in August so it's clearly notable (I try to avoid WP:ITSNOTABLE-type !votes but in this case It actually is notable), Anyway notability's there –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC). =++++[reply]

I'm not calling it non-notable, just keep in mind that The Huffington Post publishes about 1,900 articles per day. At that rate, they mention everything. It's not like there's a bar to clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am a bit skeptical about the weight given to The Huffington Post. The blog post is essentially the work of two people at The Lineup. Apparently you can let them know if you find something interesting and it might make its way into their project which in turn could make its way into The Huffington Post. The Wikipedia article predates their article by a couple months, so it wouldn't surprise me if they used Wikipedia as their source. It's proof of nothing, but you'll be hard pressed to find information in that article that isn't already in Wikipedia. - Location (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stage Irish. Or wherever subsequent consensus may determine (this is the current redirect target of Irish cultural stereotypes). Whether to merge any content from the history is also an editorial matter. But consensus here is not to keep it as a separate article.  Sandstein  20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paddywhackery[edit]

Paddywhackery (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 about a non-notable portmanteau that may be appropriate for Wiktionary. Fails WP:NOTDICT. - MrX 17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 12:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The concept doesn't appear to have a clear, consistent definition in the first place, and it's something for a dictionary rather than Wikipedia anyways it seems. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-encyclopaedic. WP:NOT. It may be a less than subtle promotion of the television program. --Bejnar (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I might be able to find something for this, at least to where it could be in Wiktionary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm finding quite a bit of coverage in academic texts like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know that I'd necessarily call it a neologism, as the term seems to be in fairly widespread use in academic circles and I'm finding some evidence to show that it's been used for a while. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to ask around for help on this one from the various WPs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Irish cultural stereotypes. Searching is slightly difficult because the way the term is spelled is slightly different sometimes: "paddywhackery" versus "paddy whackery", but I have found where this term has been fairly regularly used over a long period of time. I'm finding plenty of mentions in books like this, this, this, and this. However all of that said, I think that this would be better as an overall article on Irish cultural stereotypes in general, since there is more than enough out there to warrant a separate entry aside from cultural stereotypes. Making it slightly more general title-wise would likely make it easier to find in general and feel slightly less limited (ie, we can find sourcing that discusses Irish stereotyping in general rather than one that uses this specific term). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
• Week keep and consider renaming I had trouble finding a reliable source that defines it; the current definition sources to a reliable source seems to be OR (see article's talk). After some digging, the best ref I think comes from Stanca Nicoleta, Hollywood Gender Representations of  Irish America in the 20th  Century: Maureen O’Hara and Pierce Brosnan Hollywood Gender Representations of  Irish America in the 20th  Century: Maureen O’Hara and Pierce Brosnan (may be paywalled, email me if you need a copy) [18], which has the following sentence: "Satirical cartoons and articles exploiting Ireland - the so called "Paddywhackery" -acquired wide distribution and could be considered, therefore, one of the roots of contemporary forms of popular culture representing the Irish." The journal is rather low tier, I think, but is still qualifies as a peer reviewed source. There is another academic source, Walshe, Shane, 'Normal people like us don't use that type of language. Remember this is the real world'. The language of Father Ted: representations of Irish English in a fictional world [19] (ditto for paywalled), which has a definition attributed to [20] (no Google preview, thus not searchable online and only AGFable without library access): "Share defines paddywhackery as 'Stage Irish goings-on; exaggeration of national characteristics, customs or behaviour; employment of such alleged characteristics in a racist context' (2003:235)." On the regular web, this (Washington Times definition) is the best I could find; related is [21] (WSJ), but note both clerly attribute the word to the Urban Dictionary[22] (which I don't think qualifies as a RS). This is not as clear, but should be helpful. I also found [23], but I am not sure if the site is reliable. Overall, while I think the article sources are currently poor, I think this term is notable. What may, however, be considered is whether or not this should be renamed Stereotypes of Irish people, or be just a subsection in such an article (which should also touch upon the Stage Irish topic). In other words, is paddywhackery a jargon/slang term for stereotypes of Irish in general, or only of a specific subset of them? @MrX, Compassionate727, CoffeeWithMarkets, Bejnar, and Tokyogirl79: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Piotrus, I agree with the rename. I think that the term itself has merit, but it's just a word to describe a topic that's slightly larger but is encompassed by the term. I'd probably support a merge to state Irish or merge stage Irish into an overall article about stereotypes of Irish people. I'd lean more towards an overall article though, since while stage Irish would be considered paddywhackery (if I understand the term correctly) not all paddywhackery would be considered to be stage Irish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:GNG says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" (emphasis added). What we have for paddywhackery is a mere mention (often in scare quotes) in reliable sources, and slightly more coverage in sources that are not deemed to be reliable. What we're left with, then, is DICDEF. Deleting this would not prevent the creation of an "Irish cultural stereotypes" article at a later date. Scolaire (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If we assume for the sake of argument that Irish cultural stereotypes is an article that should exist, then what would make it any different than the material that's already discussed in Anti-Irish sentiment? We seem to already have an argument on that already. Of course, stereotypes can be good theoretically rather than pejorative, I suppose (arguable, but I'll concede the point). Still, Paddywhackery appears both a poor article title for an article about those stereotypes as well as a bad redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, a good find. I'd totally support a merge of this to Anti-Irish sentiment, and redirecting Irish cultural stereotypes/Stereotypes of Irish people there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that paddywhackery is something indulged in by Irish-Americans and other people of Irish descent, and to a certain extent by the Irish themselves. It really has nothing to do with anti-Irish sentiment. Note that it is described in the article as "poor representations of Irish culture", not as being anti-Irish in itself. Do we really want to hold up "The Pogues, Riverdance, and the 1952 Maureen O'Hara film The Quiet Man" as anti-Irish? Merging this content to that article and having it as a redirect would be wrong. [Off-topic: I am changing those two new redirects to point to Stage Irish, which is properly about cultural stereotypes]. Scolaire (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifuzzaman Nomani[edit]

Sharifuzzaman Nomani (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)

Notable for only one event which fails the guideline. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I suppose unless he can be mentioned elsewhere as I found some links at News, browser and Highbeam but not much. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom, per WP:1E; do not pass any WP:BIO. --nafSadh did say 14:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches show that he is only known for the single event. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uptech Computer[edit]

Uptech Computer (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:CORP. Barely scraped through an AFD in 2006. Note that this is not the Kentucky-based startup accelerator of the same name. Vrac (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipieda is not a business directory. This firm hasn't made any kind of major splash, and it just doesn't merit an article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I simply found nothing to suggest better improvement. Pinging the most still active user Kinu. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Abdul Halim[edit]

Maulana Abdul Halim (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)

Fail to pass general notability Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:MILL. Non-notable party official/functionary. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found several links at the usual sources for a "Maulana Abdul Halim"s but if at all a better article can be made later. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches showed nothing to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per WP:1E; do not pass any WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. --nafSadh did say 14:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Ritchie333. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 14:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All American Recreation[edit]

All American Recreation (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)

Minor local business which doesn't meet WP:GNG, has been flagged for notability and other issues for 6 years without improvement. Nsteffel (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Entirely non-notable, no claim of significance. Coverage found is WP:ROUTINE. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Learning experience[edit]

Learning experience (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)

Unreferenced essay rife with original research and synthesis. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another attempt to promulgate this concept conceived by Dr. Jagannath Kuberappa Dange. The deleted biography contained much of the same material, sourced solely to Dange's paper, that was published on Academia.edu, but never in a peer-reviewed journal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Exactly and this article hardly seems fitting for us and would need to be restarted if it can become better. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Greenwood[edit]

Nicki Greenwood (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)

Autobiography, vanity publisher, no sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Only source is the article subject and Original author's own website. Conflict of interest, peacock... Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Autobiography and WP:SOAPBOX. --Drm310 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Tell her to use her own webpage to point out how special she is. HalfShadow 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searches on Highbeam, Questia, Google Books return nothing on the subject; Google returns just the usual social media. The listed awards do not look notable; fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - the Goodreads award is marginally important. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The linked Goodreads page says "The Barclay Sterling Contest is held by the Lake Country Romance Writers (now Lilac City Rochester Writers)" which feels very local, both by geography and genre? AllyD (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW delete for now as I simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability just isn't established here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, search brings up nothing for WP:GNG, article creator is WP:SPA and appears to be subject of article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone above me - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to King's College London. Discounting the unsigned opinion by the new account Barokpenoy (talk · contribs), nobody wants to keep this. Also protecting. Whether to keep any content in the target article is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  20:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King's Centre for Risk Management[edit]

King's Centre for Risk Management (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)

Poorly-sourced article about a centre in a college. No evidence of WP:ORGDEPTH notability independent of King's College London. My merge and redirect to the main article was promptly reverted by the article's creator. - MrX 16:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was going to agree with the merge but I'm only finding primary sources. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above; I have no problem with a merge/redirect if desired (and, since the page keeps getting reverted by the creator), protection of the redirect page. Neutrality^talk 20:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain page; not only primary sources were given, I could see secondary sources given too. Having reviewed the histories of this page and King's College London, seems like the 'prompt reversion' (which was done only once) was an action done as a result of the 'prompt merge/redirection' done by Mr X. As it stands, the link to KCRM on the King's College London page is more advisable/sensible/appropriate, than

merging/redirecting the KCRM page to the main page. It is best to retain and expand the KCRM page.

• Redirect and protect likely if this is the best option. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Institute of Electrical Engineering (GIEE)[edit]

The Global Institute of Electrical Engineering (GIEE) (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 about a trade association, with a name resembling an institution of higher learning. The website does not even list an address. No evidence that the subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 16:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - MrX 16:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's seemingly nothing for a better article aside from links here and draft and userfy only if necessary. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancy name but no hits in gnews or evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 19:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instrument maker[edit]

Instrument maker (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 is a disambiguation page, but there are no articles with similar names to disambiguate. It would be possible to create a redirect instrument maker (music) pointing to Musical instrument#Construction, and another instrument maker (scientific) pointing to Scientific instrument#List of scientific instruments manufacturers, and retarget the items in the disambiguation page to those redirects, but this still makes only two items, since the third item, Luthier, is not a similar name. The redirects would be enough without the disambiguation page until a third type of instrument maker is identified. On the other hand, there is the point that redirects can't be hat-noted (although the sections in the target article could be). —Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What is the point to this AfD? Is there any question that "instrument maker" has two valid and distinct meanings and that disambiguation is required between them, even if the two targets are not called Instrument maker (musical) and Instrument maker (scientific)? Nor is this any reason to raise any spurious renames for them! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that disambiguation pages are intended to differentiate between article names, not meanings of phrases. If the page was replaced with two redirects as I suggested above, this would actually speed up the user's access to the information, since the two items would appear as the phrase was typed, allowing quick selection of the desire one. Right now, the user is sent to a disambiguation page, which has links which point to other pages, and not even to the sections which have minimal information about instrument makers. However, my understanding of the protocols for disambiguation may be in error, so I am happy to go along with whatever consensus develops.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two lexically-close terms both being "instrument maker". The only unusual aspect is that both terms are identical but they don't (as usually happens) have disambiguators added (in which case we'd just go straight there). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per WP:D: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous...even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles." --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with a touch of WP:IAR if need be: the term is so ambiguous that the reader will be best served by finding this dab page to point to the pages about the two kinds of instruments, and can then navigate onwards from the appropriate page. PamD 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this seems useful and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Wenjun[edit]

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

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

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

Advertisement of an unnotable artist. Article was PRODed and deleted. Articles that exist on French, German and Spanish Wikipedia were created by the same user (see global contributions of User:Chaonan); very likely to be cross-wiki promotion/spamming. Wcam (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also possibly COI because the article creator's username Chaonan matches the name of a person close to the artist (Google "Fu Wenjun" chaonan). --Wcam (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:As per nominator, artist is unnotable. Ayub407^talk 15:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found some links at Books, browser and Highbeam but if possible a better article can be made later. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. These exhibitions: does anyone have sources for them? (Chinese photographers' articles can be sourced: see for example Zhang Xiao.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The article needs to be better written, but the delete votes are flawed because they only looked at English sources (I've now added Find Sources links for his Chinese name). The person seems to be quite famous in China. A google search of his Chinese name returns 130,000 results, including substantial coverage in many of China's top media outlets. See China Daily, Guangming Daily, Phoenix TV, Ta Kung Pao, and numerous others. His art has been studied in many Chinese art journals (see Google scholar results of his Chinese name), such as Yishu Dangdai (Contemporary Art). -Zanhe (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A dreadful article, but the biographee does seem to be Wikipedia-style notable. -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – and copy edit to address aspects of promotional tone. The subject passes WP:BASIC and point #3 of WP:ARTIST. Source examples include (translated into English using Google Translate): [24], [25], [26], [27]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is substantial coverage for this article, so it meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPSaaS[edit]

UPSaaS (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 about a product or service, the notability of which seems to rest solely on a white paper. Fails WP:GNG notability. I redirected the title to Uninterruptible power supply but was reverted by the article's creator. - MrX 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirecting to Uninterruptible power supply I don't think would be appropriate... although it has the up front aspect of a UPS it is not a UPS in the end. As described, it is a managed power supply for a complex/building/company at the source, which is not a traditional UPS. It's more of an augmentation of the electrical power company that already supplies power to these businesses/homes etc. But, as you said, "solely on a white paper"; it seems to be a matter of WP:TOOSOON because there isn't any reliable sources that expand on this or shows itself as more then a WP:DICDEF. - Pmedema (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems to be a matter of WP:DICDEF here. Ayub407^talk 15:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article lacks even the basic elements that might show it to be notable or even well-cited. It's formatted like a dictionary definition consisting of promotional materials. If there were citations and such to back it up, UPS as a service might be enough for a subheading on the UPS page. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing to have adequate coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Concerns about the security of electical supply are manifold, software controlled UPSs are part of the equation, whether these are provided in-house, or whether managed power is purchased, as in this example. The generic topic could undoubtedly use an article, but it would be better if someone conversant with the literature were to write it. The current article on Power management is very limited in its scope. Modern power management system regulate much more than just shutting down or reducing power when a system is inactive. They massage the current, correcting such characteristics as over or under voltages, cyclical variations, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I simply see no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Consulate General in Chennai[edit]

Australian Consulate General in Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable , consulates less so. Last AfD none of the keep voters showed evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only some brief mentions on News, nothing on the other searches. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment They seem to get regular coverage for vision drives. I found three related articles just by clicking on the ((find sources)) link above. If there is more out there they will be able to pass GNG.

1. Awada, Vijay (September 16, 2015). "Oz consul-general gives spectacles to students". The Times of India.
2. Patnaik, Santosh (January 31, 2015). "Australia to fund free spectacles for Hudhud victims". The Hindu.
3. "'Australia committed to ties with city'". The Hindu. April 16, 2015.

— Jbh^Talk 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominating again so soon is borderline disruptive. Enough coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2015 :(UTC)

6 months is not borderline disruptive. That is a ridiculous assertion by you. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: You may have been unaware of the guideline at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion#Renominating for deletion which suggests waiting at least two months before relisting when the previous Afd was closed as "no consensus". On that basis, waiting six months was restrained and considerate. --Bejnar (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no redirect. It fails the significant coverage guideline of WP:GNG. It can be listed at a future article about the High Commission in Delhi, should that ever prove notable for an article. But in general, embassies, and high commissions do not receive the level of in depth coverage that results in notability, much less consulates. Remember Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOT. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I found some links at News, Books and browser but nothing to suggest better so if that can happen, this can be restarted later. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have found nothing more in-depth on the vision projects or any other substantial coverage. Jbh^Talk 13:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Well, nobody wants to keep, and merging has no consensus.  Sandstein  20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HBCU Closure Crisis[edit]

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

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

Reason Broadmoor (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC) This is page is a candidate for deletion because it's simply grossly inaccurate and misleading information[reply]

1.) There's no HBCU Closure Crisis. There's over 100 HBCUs and only three small schools closed in the last 10 years. Please see Defunct HBCUs 2.) Some HBCUs have money problems mostly due to discriminatory funding but that doesn't mean they're on the brink of closing. Actually many studies suggest that HBCUs are still managing to strive and enrollment is increasing.^[1] Louisiana State University, a flagship university, is experiencing serious money problems but it continues to operate and thrive so money problems aren't exclusive to HBCUs nor synonymous with closure.^[2] 3.)The writer of this page stated that South Carolina State University was closed for Fall 2015 which isn't true, that HBCUs lose 12,000 students per year which isn't true, and that HBCUs account for a large percentage of black undergraduate students which also isn't true (HBCUs accounts for less than 15%}. I removed two of the three false comments but they can quickly be found in the history of the page edits. So the writer clearly wrote biased, ill-informed, and misleading content.

I can provide more reasons if necessary but I feel the three points mentioned are strong enough to delete the page to help savage the integrity of Wikipedia.Broadmoor (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Historically black colleges and universities. No need for a standalone article at this point. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't deserved to be merged, my comments above validates that. It's misleading and inaccurate information. It needs to be deleted. THERE'S NO HBCU CLOSURE CRISIS, doesn't anyone see this mess?? The author over-exaggerated an sensationalized the money issues SOME HBCUs are having Broadmoor (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is certainly oversensationalized. Most of the colleges mentioned in the article as having closed did so more than 20 years ago, so they should probably not be considered to be part of a present-day crisis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Nothing to show there is really a "crisis" regarding this topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anoma Fonseka[edit]

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

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

A Field Marshal's and Member of Parliament's spouse is not a notable person. Generally wife of army chief heads the Army Wives Welfare Association(President of Seva Vanitha Army Branch-in Sri Lanka). Not a Notable Person and No Important Sources Found KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It looks like she was more than just a wife of an army chief. There seems to be substantial news coverage about her, and it looks like she won some type of national award. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to be sufficient coverage of her work in RS. TheBlueCanoe 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG. which its passes.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Creek (Queensland)[edit]

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

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

No sources. —Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a local park area is not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is not that it doesn't have coverage, see e.g Swift response from firies after couple stranded on car, but it doesn't have the coverage required by Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Parks are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general notability guidelines, unlike legally recognized populated places which have their own guideline. There is also a problem with the name since there is another Boulder Creek in Queensland further south near Gympie, see Gympie to host outdoor recreation forum. Normally, I would say "redirect" to Calen, Queensland, but Calen is far away and because of the one near Gymie that redirect would be confusing. There is nothing wrong with a properly cited entry for Boulder Creek within another appropriate article. While citation to a secondary source is always better, a primary source may be used for verification. If there were notability then a better name would be hydrographic disambiguation by main stream. As this Boulder Creek seems to flow into Omega Creek, that title would be Boulder Creek (Omega Creek) for the creek. For the park one would use the jurisdiction that has control over the park, whatever municipality, forest reserve, or agency that may be, for disambiguation. (Would that be Mount Ossa National Park? If so maybe mention belongs in that article.) Boulder Creek (Approved - N) at GEOnet Names Server --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found a substantive article about Boulder Creek Park, "Focus sur Boulder Creek Park" (8 Sept. 2013), in French, by Laure Giraud. There were also articles in two other newspapers about the stranded couple, mentioned above. Still not enough coverage for notability, as I reckon things. --Bejnar (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and above editors. Bejnar's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Clipchamp[edit]

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak_{(non-admin closure)}.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)))[reply]

Clipchamp (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 suppose this product is useful, but there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to think of it as notable. As of right now, none of the websites cited in this article are reliable sources. The tone of the article as well is frustratingly promotional. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infosec Taylor Swift[edit]

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

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

Lack of real world notability, except one or two articles, thus fails WP:NOT. It's just one of many parody accounts. Coderzombie (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Coderzombie. Non-notable parody account. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable entry. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:N. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the above arguments, and this looks like it'll be a clear 'snow delete' situation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per above arguments. ABF99 (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I support deletion only because there's not an established practice for these sort of entities (I couldn't find a single other case). On one hand, Infosec Taylor Swift has probably received more top-tier press coverage than many people listed in Wikipedia. On the other hand, it's a parody Twitter account, and would seem not to have any long-term impact. If it ended up being mentioned prominently in some context aside from media infotainment and in some sort of depth (as many of the notability guidelines suggest), that would work. But that is not the case.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as I found some usual links at News, Books and browser but nothing to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Change to disambiguation page as this seems obvious and there's no need for a longer AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Strong[edit]

We Are Strong (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)

While this hip-hop track has attracted some popularity and earned some coverage by devoted fans of the genre, in places such as xxlmag.com and the like, it just doesn't seem particularly notable. The world is full of similar hip-hop singles that get a flash of success yet fail to really chart, get significant press coverage, etc. The title itself is also confusingly generic, being already used for a heavy metal song as well as being a part of the 'Boston Strong' movement. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable as stand alone article entry. Kierzek (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe delete if there's no improvement but CoffeeWithMarkets what about making a disambiguation page as to mention both of them? SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That had not occurred to me. I wouldn't object if another user decided to do just that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any redirect is a separate editorial decision.  Sandstein  20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpadFS[edit]

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

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

Notability not established. Sources include the inventor's homepage, their doctoral thesis, and a forum; the only additional source I could find is a paper in an off-track conference that has garnered three citations according to GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability not established. Could not find any reliable source. CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As stated above, this just isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to list of file systems or delete. Sounds kind of interesting, but I can't find much in the way of sources. I did find this article from Linux Magazine, but that's about all that's indexed on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified my vote to suggest redirection rather than deletion, as I didn't realize at the time that we had this list. I think it's better to give readers some idea of where it's used and what supports it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as I found nothing better than a few links at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the concept of crash counting notable? In that case I would vote merge to crash counting. -- intgr [talk] 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Intgr: as far as I can tell from a quick GScholar search, crash counting was invented by the author of SpadFS, prototyped in that system, and not more notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Linux Mag source that you added to crash counting could be used to establish some collective notability for SpadFS and crash counting (although I would then redirect crash counting to SpadFS). NinjaRobotPirate rejected that, but probably didn't see the PDF version. CerealKillerYum, CoffeeWithMarkets, Kierzek, did you consider that source? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not impressed, but would agree that if consensus feels that crash counting is notable enough (and it is barely a stub), then this could be merged with it; otherwise, delete. Kierzek (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is independently sourced and merge crash counting with it if it's only used in this filesystem. LjL (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG states that "multiple sources are generally expected" — we currently have only one secondary source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medicaid Information Technology Architecture[edit]

Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (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)

Unreferenced & promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent references cited, and none found. I wondered about a redirect to Medicaid, but this subject is not mentioned there and there is no information worth merging. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as stand alone, not notable and redirect to main subject article. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TNT at best because I found several links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest better immediate improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an agency initiative that may have significant interest in the industry, but little notability outside of that. At best, it merits a mention in an article on medical recordkeeping or industry standards for such things.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  20:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verse of Mawadda[edit]

The verse of Mawadda (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)

Completing nom for IP as requested at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Help_in_afd_process. I have no opinion on notability. shoy (reactions) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC) The IP's rationale is as follows:[reply]

This article should be deleted because 1) It lacks notability: the verse has never figured as one of controversy of opinions or implications. 2) Wikipedia is not a site for petty pro-Shia agenda from chat forums clothed as intellectual content. The article is clearly a Shia attempt to advance their claim for Ali's preeminence--using even something as minute and insignificant an issue, among Muslims, as this single verse. 3) The sources used are at best questionable: of the 9 references, 4 of them are shiite authored, 4 lack page references, 1 is authored by Ibn Kathir (who doesn't support the article claim in his own tafsir). Nor could i find Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's support for what he is claimed to have supported. This leads me to believe we are dealing with false supporting references to stealthily support the articles claims and invented notability.
This article should be deleted for these reasons.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article does feel like a sectarian WP:PROMO piece. I can't read Arabic so I am not in a position to judge the quality of the sources too closely, but I suspect that a number of them may not pass WP:RS. Ultimately this one is probably going to need a look from some editors with a higher level of competency than I posses in this field. I think I will ping the Islam project talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep(probably) Once again I feel the IP solved some of the problems they've listed as reasons for deletion (like removing Asqalani). As the article currently stands, it does not read like pro Shia propaganda at all. I'm of the belief that most sura are notable just because of the sheer volume of tasfir out there, and this one seems to have received enough coverage to be notable. I hope the IP registers an account and becomes a more frequent editor. Can you please point out which sources are from chat forums? Brustopher (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree: 1) i don't think it has enough coverage. It has a non-notable and short quote of the verse, word meaning and explanation--all unremarkable. 2) All the pro-Shia info is what is typically found in shia chat forums. User:Saff V. and User:Hadi.anani both seem to employ similar edit styles of taking fallacious arguments from these forums and slapping them with RS references to legitimize their wiki inclusion. Already, i have searched references for some of their statements and found that the content wasn't supported in these references. I am still researching their other cites for dishonesty, but as you can imagine it is a tedious process for someone with other commitments. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they are sock-puppets or working together, but that is another issue altogether.--58.106.225.96 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep IP thanks for your contributions in the article. It is better first log in and then edit articles. I am sure that you know Wikipedia rules completely but I don't know why edit by IP! I added two section in the al-Qorba (relative) section (In Sunni view and In Shia view). You can add more information about these subtitles and complete them. Please suggest more references about Sunni and Shia views until I insert in the article. Thanks Saff V. (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You presented 3 reasons to deleted the article 2 of which has really nothing to do with this AFD and the one which is related seems flawed due to misunderstanding of the policies. "the verse has never figured as one of controversy of opinions or implications. ", this is not a criteria for being notable. As the "notability" says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". So, you would better discuss based on the sources, and as you see, there are enough reliable sources significantly covering this subject.Saff V. (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is clearly notable. Some Refs such as madelung adds weight. Other reasons presented by nominator IP is not valid here and should be discussed on the articles's talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Because the two "keeps" are qualified as weak, but this can be restored if better sourcing appears.  Sandstein  20:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. Baxter Miller[edit]

R. Baxter Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is a biography of a living person. The subject lacks notability and is not well documented. For instance, there're several claims such as "...he produced what is widely regarded as the first scholarly work..." or "Miller is credited with remapping the historical renaissances..." that are not verifiable and supported by references. This page has been used as a self-promotional article. The only contributor is Dr. Ronald Baxter Miller himself and the only resources provided are his personal webpages. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV policy which requires the subject to be covered out of Wikipedia by secondary sources. Rouhollah Aghasaleh 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghasaleh (talk • contribs)

• Very Weak Keep if secondary sources can be found. He is the editor of the Langston Hughes Journal, has apparently published many articles in various journals, appears to be the leading expert on Langston Hughes, and this publication is cited by 53. While those items do not precisely match with Wp:Academic, I think there is enough there to rationalize keeping his article. The article does need some toning down in terms of its promotion biography language. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The University of Georgia seems to be worse than average at making their internal honors known to the world, but he appears to have become the Donald L. Hollowell Distinguished Professor of Social Justice and Civil Rights Studies in 2014 (taking over that honor from Obie Clayton). That would give him a pass of WP:PROF#C5. But my keep is weak because the sourcing for all this is so murky and it might be an ex officio chair associated with his position as Interim Director, Center for Social Justice, Human and Civil RIghts rather than a personal chair. Incidentally, searching for "Ron Miller" finds some things that searching for "Baxter Miller" doesn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteYou can vote only once. You already nominated this for deletion. There're several reasons to delete this article according to WP:DEL-REASON, WP:DEL#REASON, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, and WP:DEL9: 1."Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" 2."Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N), and 3."Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons." From WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. WP:SPIP asserts that "Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written; see Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received." In this case independent sources are not provided to verify the author's claims. WP:GNG clearly explains that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This article, as it is, does not provide neutral secondary sources about the subject. The only provided sources are the subject's personal pages. Also, searching his name nothing significant appears. Rouhollah Aghasaleh 05:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghasaleh (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are two issues here. One is whether this person meets wp:academics, and I would say that on that I would have to go for a "weak delete" - there is one possibly notable award, the one from the Before Columbus Foundation. I cannot find any information about the Daryl C. Dance award. There is a Langston Hughes medal, but the only Langston Hughes award I find is from Washington U in St Louis, (for creative and performing arts), and he isn't listed as a winner, although the site only covers from 2005 onward. Subject is listed as winner of the "Albert Christ-Janer Award" from his own institution -- I don't know if it's recognized outside of the U of Georgia. As another !voter said, his book, for which he won the Columbus Fn award, is cited all of 53 times in G-Scholar, which is not much. The second issue is whether this violates wp:BLP. It has a considerable amount of non-referenced material, which, if deleted, would result in a very small article with very little information. It appears to violate all three of the core policies: NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research. That the subject himself provided at least some of the information here, we've also got a COI problem. There are statements like: "Between 2008 and 2012, Miller has produced three well-respected books, and he continues to present his research to audiences throughout the world." which is unreferenced and decidedly not neutral POV. His position of "Hollowell Professor of Civil Rights" is not verified by the page that is referenced, nor by the person's CV which is linked from there. This means that we have unreferenced and possibly erroneous information in a BLP, which is a potential reason for deletion. The only other option that I see is to reduce it to a stub with the few verifiable facts that exist. LaMona (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as the article could be worse but we can also wait for better and there has been more than enough time for improvement and I also found some links at Books, browser and Scholar but not much extraordinary. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage India[edit]

Heritage India (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 simply found nothing better to suggest better improvement and this seems more like an indie local magazine that wouldn't have gotten much coverage with my best search results here and here. Although the Barnes and Noble connection is admirable, there's not much for a better separate article and, at best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere. Pinging taggers Calaka and CardinalDan. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- It looks like a popular glossy magazine on the history of India as portrayed in surviving structures. I suspect that its equivalent in UK would be deemed notable. I note that it is also downloadable (no doubt for a fee). However, I would want to judge notability by its circulation and we have not data on that. The current article is essentially an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although somewhat weakly. I have found a few sources [28][29][30] which I think are just sufficient (although, as I emphasize, very narrowly) to meet the GNG. However, I would consider changing my !vote in the event of a strong argument to the contrary. As the nom mentions, the article could also use cleanup, since it reads like an advertisement at present. --Biblioworm 16:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entry reads like an advertisement, nothing really notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because zero reliable sources (WP:V) are present in the article itself, and nobody seems to want to bother to add them even if they exist.  Sandstein  20:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valor Group Holdings[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail google test. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It almost seems like WP:TOOSOON because the company is only mentioned in 2015 in the results. Buffaboy ^talk 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable at this time. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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