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 and redirect to Habasit Holding. Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi Motoriduttori[edit]

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

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

Article was dePRODed with the comment that the sources are valid because they are all taken from the company web site, Concern was: Unsourced. No major claims of importance or significance (WP:ORG). Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOTYELLOW. See WP:PRIMARY. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Notability cannot be established from primary sources alone. Ceosad (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems easy to find more sources which demonstrate notability such as this. See WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this source. Being mentioned in a case study is not the stuff notability is made of. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is exactly the stuff notability is made of. Per the WP:GNG, such a source is independent, reliable and detailed. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if it can actually be improved as I also found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but delete if it cannot be immediately improved and can simply be restarted later. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. If somebody believes they can find the sources to back it up, I have no problem with restoring this to their user space, but lacking that, delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is evidence of notability, as presented above. RoySmith seems to have some idiosyncratic concept of notability which does not conform to our guideline. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or Redirect to Habasit Holding, of which it is a subsidiary. I can find nothing beyond passing mentions in independent sources, so I do not believe this subsidiary has any real claim to notability. Reyk _YO! 08:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH, although I won't object to a redirect per Reyk to the article of the parent Aktiengesellschaft. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 30 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zone consoles[edit]

Zone consoles (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)

unsourced and non notable. disputed prod noq (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I say delete because it doesn't seem particularly notable and it is unsourced. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my previous PROD. Bootleg consoles are rarely notable because they're rarely covered in reliable sources. This one is no exception. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was just created,more information is likely to be added soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.193.216 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like this is mostly already covered at Vii, where it's also under-sourced. Looking for references, I found a usable one from 2010: [1] but it's brief and raises more questions than it answers. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sega Zone (console) has its own article, which also needs a great deal of attention if it's going to survive. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it doesn't prove notability and is not referenced very well. Anarchyte 07:42, 27 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. A7 is just as valid now as it was before. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hybe (website)[edit]

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

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

Was speedily deleted before as Hybe.com for A7. My concern is that the significance is still not credibly stated. Failing that, the article isn't notable either (WP:WEBCRIT); all news stories I can find are based on the press release. The article itself seems to coatrack the affiliated TV program to the website. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:33, 21 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew_Hughes_(photographer)[edit]

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

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

The article is an obvious WP:SPAM violation. The edit history makes it clear that the whole article is created almost exclusively by the subject, and it never establishes any real WP:NOTABILITY, its purpose is just to advertise its creator. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under A7. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I considered nominating it for speedy as it's so obvious. Jeppiz (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and above editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This one is pretty clearly WP:PROMOTION to me, and anyway fails to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:33, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Hamilton[edit]

Alexa Hamilton (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)

Delete: no substantive claim to notability as actress or in any other way. Quis separabit? 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that she doesn't appear notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - her role in the Poseidon Adventure mini-series might be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louis van Niekerk[edit]

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

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

NN poet. There's a claim of winning a prize that I've been unable to verify.

Note that there appears to be a different person named Louis van Niekerk, an actor that may be notable. That person does not appear to be the subject of this article. The Dissident Aggressor 21:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I found nothing better aside from some Books links and the other links were to other people. As a fellow conservationist, it's unfortunate to delete this but there's simply no improvement. Pinging Velella. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -I can see no evidence of notability or even that he has any significant environmental credentials. To be notable as a poet needs a great deal more than is provided. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was surprised by the number of people in the news with this same name, but none appear to be this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamila Porczyk[edit]

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA. Other claims to notability are winning of relatively unknown competitions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Definitely non-notable in MMA with only 2 fights, neither top tier. Not sure whether those competitions show enough to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing out the weak part of my vote since there's no indication she's a notable entertainer.Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the previous comments about her MMA notability. My search didn't find significant independent coverage to show the Miss Universe Fitness pageant wins were significant and her appearances on Polish television shows didn't generate the coverage I'd say was needed to meet WP:GNG. Most of the coverage I found was routine sports reporting on her MMA appearances, but she clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. It may be that there are sources in Polish that I didn't find, but my vote is based on what my search found (or didn't find). Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment so appearing on TV comedy show with sources such as Święta wojna isn't notable either then. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a comedy show isn't enough to show notability unless you can show she meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even any evidence she was on that show. She's not listed in the show's article as part of the cast or at the article's source at IMDB. Papaursa (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cannot see any clear consensus here. Since it has been relisted thrice, been open for too long (a month), closing it. (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Men's Youth Handball Championship[edit]

Asian Men's Youth Handball Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No-notable event. Flat Out (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A continental championship in a pro sport like Handball looks quite notable. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as a youth series it is not a pro event. Flat Out (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well organzied article and not any different than other youth/junior handball tournament, sources should be added though. Kante4 (talk) 20:44, 21 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. Cannot see any clear consensus here. Since it has been relisted thrice, been open for too long (a month), closing it. (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Women's Junior Handball Championship[edit]

Asian Women's Junior Handball Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable event Flat Out (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A continental championship in a pro sport like Handball looks quite notable. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes but this is a junior event not a pro event. Flat Out (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well organzied article and not any different than other youth/junior handball tournament, sources should be added though. Kante4 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Similar tournaments from other continents have good articles, we just have to add more info on the Asian one. Charlie the Pig (talk) 22:39, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Cleveland[edit]

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

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were this, this and this so if there's no better improvement here, this should be replaced with a disambiguation page for the two other William Cleveland (and I was going to but I wanted comments first). Pinging Moonriddengirl and Alansohn. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not generally notable, based on lack of sources, and not notable as an author. One of his books, Art and Upheaval, has a page even though it has no references. It, too, should be presented at AfD. LaMona (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His name makes it a bit difficult, but all I can really find is passing references to him and his organization which aren't substantial and some reviews of his book. Nsteffel (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources can be turned up, as has not happened yet in the time this AfD has been open. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not reveal enough to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. And I agree with LaMona regarding his book as well. Searches there turned up very little, and I've nominated it as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kev. D (Music Artist)[edit]

Kev. D (Music Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can find no evidence this artist is notable. The MTV and CNN references are not what they seem - they are unverified user-generated content; the remainder appears to be either the same, self-published or in non-notable publications. I could find no significant coverage myself and nothing which comes close to meeting the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:MUSBIO. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the exact same page content was previously at Kev. D(Music Artist) and speedily deleted. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see no obvious better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable //nepaxt 19:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches show they fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Foster (farmer)[edit]

Brian Foster (farmer) (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)

"District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula's citizen of the year " is not a claim to notability; " National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) National Climate Champion Individual Award." is a little more substantial but still not a major award. Membership on a gov't advisory council is not notability. Refs are PR, notices, and a local ref on a local personality, which is not discriminating. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO. the awards are very minor. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: several additional references have been added from the Port Lincoln Times newspaper and ABC (a national broadcaster), though they are mentions of Foster, or include commentary from him and are not biographical. --Danimations (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage; passing mentions and very minor awards do not count as significant. Frickeg (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No in-depth coverage, fails WP:GNG. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - laudable work, yet not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 27 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. Clear advocacy. G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath manifesto[edit]

Sabbath manifesto (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'm not entirely sure of better improvement especially given the current version and the best I instantly found was this, this, this and this and I'm not entirely sure if this should simply be merged elsewhere. Pinging Biscuittin, E Wing, DGG and Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 21 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casey McKee[edit]

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

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

Questionably notable artist as my searches found few results with the best here, here, here and here. So unless this can be better sourced and changed after existing the same since October 2008, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete has won no major awards nor is there evidence of significant peer recognition. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep per WP:CREATIVE, r the question is whether her art works in the permanent collections of museums are in major museums, and I would be equally able to argue it in either direction. On balance, I think they probably do count as major. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 17 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 01:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis V. Cordoba[edit]

Genesis V. Cordoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. A costume designer relatively unknown films. Note IMDB is not a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDB, and the author of the IMDB biography has only created that one article, which may indicate affiliated source. In any case, significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources is lacking. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is in poor form to nominate for deletion so soon after an article was created. Did you contact the editor who made the article? Did you do WP:Before? I think the AfD page makes it clear that sending an article for deletion is the last step out of many. Note: I am not saying the article does or even will pass GNG at this point. What I am saying is give things time and first assume good faith, do research and contact the creator. You had no time to do any of these and that's not right. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a diligent search of sourcing before nominating and performed all steps of WP:BEFORE with the exception of notifying the creator, and for that I may be guilty of biting a newcomer. I will strive to be more patient with new articles in the future. I welcome Thefilmdiary to provide any additional information or sources, and regardless of the outcome of this discussion I hope they continue to participate in Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Animalparty! I appreciate you seeing my point of view. Let's all work together to help newer editors understand notability so we can keep people who want to contribute. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  05:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A7 User:Megalibrarygirl may want to check her facts again as there was 6 hours between creation and nomination that is plenty of time for the author to have added at least one reliable reference, anyone to perform their BEFORE searches and realize this person does meet any inclusion criteria including WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. There isn't even enough of a claim of signifigance to pass the CSD#A7 criteria you removed without explaining. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that six hours is not enough time, Mcmatter. We are losing editors by acting too quickly, instead of reaching out. You put up the speedy delete tag, I believe. Did you write anything on the user's talk page to help them out? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, you are right, Mcmatter that I forgot to add the explanation for removing your tag. I'm sorry! My reason is: article is already up for AfD, let's see what a group can turn up. I want you to give the article time. There may be experts in the field. I don't know anything about costume design, do you? We need some other eyes out there.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem to meet the "significant coverage" part of our general notability guidelines. While this individual may be talented, it does not appear that in their, thus far, short career they have received the level of attention and coverage that would warrant their inclusion in an encyclopedia. EricSerge (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -While I agree that a new editor should be given time to improve an article about a notable person, and definitely should be contacted about their article, Cordoba just doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources. ABF99 (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @MBisanz:Why was this relisted? consensus is clear, there was one user complaining that 6 hours wasn't enough time to add a reliable reference and asked for more time and 7 days is definitely enough time especially since by this point a BLPProd would have it deleted as well as it has zero reliable references. All other votes have been delete.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources, and costume designers are all too run of the mill in film. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 27 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, early close per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya[edit]

Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya (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)

Synopsis: Coatrack for Anna_Politkovskaya. Even more so because the content being placed in here is being contested here .

It's being used to insert facts in contention from the main article KoshVorlon 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC) KoshVorlon 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Anna Politkovskaya was a highly notable and influential journalist who had a long career. She is not known just for her death. Her assassination was politically motivated and caused worldwide outrage. There is no reason it should not be a separate article, just like Assassination of Boris Nemtsov. This is not what WP:COATRACK is. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's already discussed on her article the second article is a coatrack for the OR and SYNTH that's currently being discussed in this RFC , it is indeed a fork of that same article and a coatrack for the OR and the SYNTH that many have attempted to place in the main article. KoshVorlon 17:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what coatrack is. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." This article is about her assassination, preceding events and subsequent events (investigation and trial). There is one section of supposedly related events, but even if that section is disputed, it doesn't make the article itself a coatrack of Anna Politkovskaya. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense proposal It's not a coatrack. One article is about the person, Anna, who is notable in her own right, even if she had never been murdered. The other article is about her assassination, which was also notable in its own right. This is like claiming that the article Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a coatrack for the article Martin Luther King, Jr.. If anything it just reveals the proposer's ignorance. Snow keep this please. Volunteer Marek  17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as a disruptive nomination from a serially disruptive editor. No reasonable grounds for deletion provided; this appears to be yet another case of User:KoshVorlon making up a non-existent policy and then demanding Wikipedia comply with it. If KV can provide an actual policy-based argument for deletion I'll reconsider—the fact that he hasn't done so strongly suggests to me that he's as aware as everyone else that there isn't one. ‑ iridescent 17:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and SNOW close. KoshVorlon believes this article to be a coatrack based solely on the fact that the bit about Putin's birthday, which is currently being discussed at Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#RfC, is in this article. So this entire 9 year old, well-sourced article about a notable subject has to be axed because of that one bit of contested information. Ridiculous.--Atlan (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Content controversy cannot justify deletion of a clearly notable subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - useful, informative article. Its existence allows to present a lot of details of the murder and keep some balance in the main Anna Politkovskaya article Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - notable event and subject. Thoroughly sourced article. Looks like a contentious nomination. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Iridescent. Begoon ^talk 09:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. Bad-faith nomination, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin's law. Nominator is due a block or ban if this keeps up. Softlavender (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - obviously. BMK (talk) 22:41, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HomeMatic[edit]

HomeMatic (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:PRODUCT and parent company EQ3 has no article. I was unable to find sources other than press releases. Maybe someone who speaks German can help find German-language significant sources. shoy (reactions) 14:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Form fhelmli: I think it should stay because of:

• compareable Produkts arge also at Wikipedia: I think that homematic is compareable to KNX KNX (standard). Knx hast got a very large Wiki Page.
• I have Referenden ELV (mother Company of EQ3) in the Wiki article (as requested)
• I have ade a reference to the official Homematic Webpage (as requested) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhelmli (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other products have articles has no bearing on this particular article. Wikipedia requires multiple reliable independent sources for each article, so coverage by newspapers or tech news websites, for example. shoy (reactions) 19:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some news article references. Is this what you request?comment added by Fhelmli —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and draft & userfy for now for the author as I'm not seeing much convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Current sources aren't enough to establish notability, and searches aren't turning up enough additional references to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online lab model of learning[edit]

Online lab model of learning (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)

Speedied as advetising (by somebody else) but speedy declined. Nevertheless I believe that this is essentially a promotional article; it reads like something in a brochure. I also doubt whether it is a widely used term which has a coherently defined meaning.TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep - I question the sources for this article and it has the feel of someone's project but I can't find outright failings of the article. There may be other article that touch similarly on the subject like E-learning (theory) but don't see exactly how it fits together... - Pmedema (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly lacks any reliable or in depth coverage, and is likely a WP:NEO. Many of the citations, coming from unreliable sources, don't even mention the topic. There's also huge WP:OR problems. This definitely should be deleted. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:00, 28 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthea Montessori House of Children[edit]

Anthea Montessori House of Children (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)

Inadequately-sourced article about a newly-opened preschool. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available sources. - MrX 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - MrX 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MrX 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - MrX 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - MrX 14:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as this is unlikely improvable yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to appropriate locality article as per longstanding tradition, expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and evidenced by over two thousand redirected articles in the category redirects from schools, that we don't have articles for schools less than high school age. Jacona (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no notability established. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Profita[edit]

Gianni Profita (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)

Is he notable and can this be better improved? I'm not entirely sure as my searches only found some links here and there here, here, here, here and here. Maybe others familiar with this or its field can help as this has also barely changed since July 2008. Notifying past users AllyD and Favonian. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find him name-checked in Italian newspapers, and he did hold a directorship of what seems to be the Italian equivalent of the Authors Guild for a time. However, I don't find any significant sources about him, and there are none to crib from in the Italian version of the article. (This appears to be pretty directly a translation of that.) Therefore, I think this is a delete for now, unless someone comes up with better sources; and it could always be re-created in the future. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If " General Manager " of the two organizations listed is head of those agencies, it would be a keep, for we keep people in such positions. But I cannot asoltrely tell, as I do not know know Italian organizational systems.Sincethe previoused think it was a directorship, I'msatisafied. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep First, the creator of the article is "Assistenteprofita" -- that is, "Profita's assistant". *sigh* However, he is known in Italy, not always for the better. I found articles [here, here, although only the first one is substantial. However, that he held a position in the ministero dei Beni culturali, albeit for only two years, may be enough to keep. The article is minimal and should be expanded, with additional references. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 23 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) Yash! 05:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lawson (album)[edit]

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

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Album release date hasn't happened yet, and charting that was indicated was for singles, not for the album itself. Content has absolutely nothing to do with the album itself, but it regurgitated content from the articles on the singles. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This album meets Wikipedia's criteria for a notable album:

An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

It is indisputable that Jamie Lawson is to be considered a 'notable musician'. This article does meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, as all 5 entries on the list can be checked. Only one of the singles mentioned in the article has its own page, so the album page provides for information for the first time on other singles. This article currently includes release information and charting information for album (MSJapan's claim that charting information was for singles is incorrect, as sources show that chart statistics are for the album). The track list will be updated to include writers and times for all track after formal album release on October 16 2015. HeyJude70 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2015

Reply Except that notable musicians do not release notable albums by default; that is what WP:NOTINHERITED is all about. Your charting information cannot be for the album, as the album hasn't been released yet; the article clearly states it was pushed back, and nothing can chart before its release, so I'm sorry, but there's no way that chart information is for the album. As for your sources, you have two reliable sources. ITunes, Google Play, and Twitter just don't cut it. MSJapan (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyAlbums can chart on the iTunes Charts prior to release. The iTunes Charts are detirmined by sales of an album, so in this case the sales for this album which was available for pre-order proved to be high enough for the album to chart. The sources used for the charts determines this, and a quick scan of the Australian or UK iTunes store chart will also prove this point. Please educate yourself on how different charting systems work before removing them from a page. HeyJude70 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: iTunes charts are not Billboard. It's got nothing to do with "different charting systems" - iTunes charts are not what we use for charting purposes. See WP:CHART. MSJapan (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:This album page has been greatly improved since this article for deletion was opened. The page now includes writing credits and times for every track, personnel for the entire album and a brief history behind that album. As of next week, charting information will be added as the album has already been shown at #1 for the UK Official Charts Half-Week. This page also has several new, reliable sources. HeyJude70 (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The album has now peaked to number 1 in the UK, number 5 in Ireland, number 4 in Australia and number 3 in New Zealand. There are now lots of reliable sources and content provided in the article now. Greenock125 (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Sufficient sources, charting album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 26 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Kish[edit]

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA with only 4 fights, not of them top tier. She hasn't fought in almost 2 years so it's unlikely she'll ever get 3 top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepDelete Joined the Ultimate Fighter (participation does not confer notability) and was eliminated fairly quickly. No Top Tier fights and unlikely to gain them. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Justine Kish is notable under WP:KICK as a kickboxer who has won a World Muaythai Council title and there are sources in the article to prove it. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to copypaste that's what the link is for but yes you are right - she meets WP:KICK. Just wish the article could talk about that more. I changed my vote.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It was harder to find a reliable independent source for her WMC title than I'd expect. Even the WMC monthly news pages didn't mention it. The article's focus on MMA was misleading, but a WMC title is enough to meet WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Charalampous[edit]

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

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

Non notable boxer. Youth and junior titles do not show notability and coverage is routine reporting of sports results.Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep - one of a series of articles on New Zealand boxers recently created by the same wikipedian. I don't know enough about the sport to know which ones justify their place in WP, though several are probably borderline. I'd be swaying towards a keep for this one - on the strength of his silver medal at the Arafura Games. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NBOX and I don't think Arafura Games meets the criteria of competing at the highest level.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Arafura Games medal is not notable enough. Has not done anything at the professional level either. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither youth championships or an Arafura medal can be considered as competing at the highest level. Coverage fails WP:GNG as it is just routine sports reporting of fight results. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JayJay Oakey[edit]

JayJay Oakey (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)

Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Nothing to show he was notable as a boxer or weightlifter. He fails WP:NBOX and the weightlifting results don't even mention him.Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG because of a lack of significant independent coverage. He's not even mentioned in several of the references, notability is not gained through your boxing trainer, and there's no evidence he achieved notability as a boxer (WP:NBOX) or weightlifter (WP:NSPORTS). Being selected for the "regional pre-selection trials" for the 2012 Olympics does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above - does not meet any notability criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate Window[edit]

Affiliate Window (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 was deleted at prod, but then userfied by request. I can't see an indication of notability, and the only reference given doesn't seem to mention them. I've looked through 10 pages of ghits and can't see anything worthwhile there. The article has been tagged since2010 for needing more references. Peridon (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Restoration of a previously deleted page. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Nothing in there indicates any notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:04, 28 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 per WP:G4 - recreation of a page previously deleted by AFD — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World 2016[edit]

Miss World 2016 (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)

Event that still fails WP:CRYSTAL. No confirmed date. No venue. No reliable sources. Not much has changed since this was deleted at the previous AfD debate. Multiple editors are contesting a G4 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• An admin should delete under speedy even if people keep removing the tag. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the second recreation already. Speedy deletion!! is the way to go. The Banner talk 18:29, 21 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hogarth[edit]

Andrew Hogarth (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)

Could find no sources that indicates subject meets WP:BIO NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also can't find any good source.--Musa Talk  17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for nowat least until more obvious better improvement can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing for a second time as it's now an obvious Keep, I probably shouldn't of closed it the first time but whatever it's been reopened and relisted and nothing's changed consensus wise so pointless dragging the AFD on again so just gonna reclose it. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 11:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutism[edit]

Whataboutism (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 on non-notable neologism that appears to be created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. The term itself was made up by The Economist journalist in 2006 and have barely been used ever since. As google search and google trends indicate some usage of the neologism begun in 2014 way after creation of this article. I myself discovered this article when it was linked in political discussion where one of the sides was accused of "whataboutism". It describes Tu quoque fallacy, neutral article for which already exists. The difference with this article is that this one has heavy anti-Russian bias and inherently non-NPOV. Niyaro (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First this is a suspicious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT nomination by a suspicious account with just a few edits (some of them several years old). Second, article is fairly well sourced and there's plenty evidence for its notability. The term is frequently used in media and also in academic work [2]. The article on the tu quoque is about the fallacy in general, this is about a particular manifestation. Hence the scope is different. There's nothing "anti-Russian" about this article and this assertion really just reveals the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of the nominator. Neither is the article non-NPOV. Volunteer Marek  05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never talked with you and I believe I've never encountered you as well, so I don't understand what warrants such accusations. How about you keep it civil instead of accusing me of committing wikipedia sins for no reason whatsoever? On topic, search for Google Scholar doesn't support your claim that it's in frequent use, quite opposite — there are about ten articles most of which around one year old. Accusing somebody of using logical fallacy and more over accusing somebody of being propaganda has very clear negative connotations. This term was specifically coined to discredit points made by Soviet Union and Russia by accusing them of being fallacious and this is what gives this neologism clear anti-Russian bias. The scope of this article is different from tu quoque only in the sense that it single outs Russia as a user of this logical fallacy (which is obviously used by everyone) and creates a new term for this. If one tries to remove anti-russian bias and bring cases of other people/countries doing the same, then the article scope will be literally the same as tu quoque one. That's why it's inherently non-NPOV. And all of this is really secondary to the fact that this is nothing else but a neologism and wikipedia has strict rules against them which this article doesn't meet. Niyaro (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well-sourced article on this phrase with a variety of commentary from different perspectives. Contrary to the nominator, I have only encountered it used outside of Wikipedia. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, I've encountered it outside of Wikipedia as well in a discussion very similar to this one: link, and this is exactly what rule on neologisms means when it says "an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term". Statistics from google trends for "whataboutism" also don't have anything on a time before creation of this article — first query was made in 'march 2014' Niyaro (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there's evidence that Wikipedia is being used to drive the term's acceptance - the driving force seems to be coming from outside, in the articles sited. Yes, it is the same as Tu quoque - but as Whataboutism is now a commonly used name for Tu quoque, this is a case for merging with Whataboutism, not for deleting it. If you feel the tone is anti-Russian, then please go ahead and edit to make it more balanced. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As noted by others, this is well sourced, and as a child of the Cold War born a bit before JFK became president I can assure you the sources are correct, this was a much used Soviet tactic, in those cases only incidentally "Russian" since many of the most prominent Soviets were Russian (but not, for example, Stalin), and then there's the "Kremlin's useful idiots" Lucas encountered in London, plus many, many others nowadays who frequently use this rhetorical tactic. Hga (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue isn't about tactic. Everybody uses this rhetorical tactic once in a while. There's already an article about it called tu quoque. The issue is about this new neologism "whataboutism" and wikipedia's rules clearly state: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" and as far I can see all the sources merely use the term or explain the meaning of it rather than being about the term. Niyaro (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, easily able to find literally hundreds of scholarly academic sources, within seconds. — Cirt (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google scholar gives 12 results, and of those that I've checked one was an anonymous comment on the website and the other one actually stated that the term was coined by The Economist journalist. So can you please provide an actual example of those hundreds of scholarly academic sources that you have found and how you found them? My results so far clearly show that this neologism is not notable and not in a frequent use. Furthermore I couldn't find a single work that is about neologism itself other than simply crediting word to The Economist author. Niyaro (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No, contrary to the claim by Niyaro, this term appears in a large number of sources - see Google news, for example [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google News search includes results from journalists' blogs as well as anonymous commentaries left on news websites, therefore Google News search is not reliable evidence for word's notability, especially considering that the word was made up by one of the journalists. Furthermore, in the rule on neologisms, which is very short and conscious and is linked several times in this discussion, is stated that: "an editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms". You need sources that establish word's notability as well as sources that are about the word itself. Compare with article on another neologism — Truthiness. It has plenty of reliable sources that clearly state that the word is notable as well as plenty of secondary sources that are about the word itself (articles that describe word's backstory, it's spread in usage, rise in popularity and so forth). The only thing Whataboutism article has on the neologism itself is a statement that it was made up by Edward Lucas (based on article written by Edward Lucas), while the rest is all about tu quoque rhetorical technique as used by Soviets and Russians and not the word itself at all. Niyaro (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are multiple RS specifically about whataboutism, such as here. This page can be better sourced? Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closure comment - I originally closed as Keep but the nom wasn't happy and to be totally honest some of the Keeps are weak so to save everyones time being wasted at DRV I'm just reopening & relisting. –Davey2010^Talk 15:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for sure. Not only does it have very solid sources in English, it is also covered in the Russian-language press [4], [5]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ample coverage in reliable sources. A recent example: [6] from The Washington Post, which discusses whataboutism in the context of modern American controversies. This source is already in the article, and there are many others like this on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 22 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish people in France[edit]

Finnish people in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish people in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedes in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croats in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeks in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovans in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch people in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish people in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarusians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainians in France Jbh^Talk 11:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:GNG. Finnish people in Spain would be a borderline case, but France is a bit too uncommon destination for emigration... Ceosad (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Violates WP:Original research since, although of course there are Finnish people living in France, no other source seems to treat them as a group. Especially as the article wants to include people whose ancestors were Finnish along with immigrants.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would vote to delete any article of the kind that is just demographic statistics.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you have an opinion on any of the related articles, please comment at their AfD page. This is not a bundled AfD. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:14, 28 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians in France[edit]

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

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish people in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedes in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croats in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeks in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovans in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch people in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish people in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarusians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainians in France Jbh^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:14, 28 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people in France[edit]

Irish people in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish people in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedes in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croats in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeks in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovans in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch people in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish people in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarusians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russians in France
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainians in France Jbh^Talk 11:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you have an opinion on the other articles please comment at their AfD. This is not a bundled AfD. Thany you. Jbh^Talk 17:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be. Snappy (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think of it when I nominated them. There are many more of these which have been created by a bunch of SOCKS. If these are deleted then it might be worthwhile to track the other non-notable ones down and bundle them. Jbh^Talk 21:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:07, 28 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 Miss World Philippines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Philippines 2016[edit]

Miss World Philippines 2016 (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)

Effectively unsourced (no unrelated sources conform WP:RS, external link is no source) crystal bol. No date, no venue... The Banner talk 14:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Would temporarily converting into a redirect to Miss World Philippines until more details come out and the event comes closer be a suitable option? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss World Philippines for the time being. Not finding source coverage at this time to qualify this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Gaasbeek[edit]

Stefan Gaasbeek (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 business person. I only found one reliable source that covers the subject in any detail [7]. Fails WP:BASIC. - MrX 14:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not seeing any obvious better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 29 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 deleted per G7' Materialscientist (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polly franks[edit]

Polly franks (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 victim advocate. While I'm sure she does great work and deserves recognition, I can't find enough sources to meet WP:BASIC. There's a brief profile here [8] and a passing mention here [9]. I also assume that the passing mention here [10] is the same person. - MrX 14:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Many links and references have been added to cite and show that she is a noteworthy individual, She had a hand in getting “Two Strikes and You’re Out Child Protection Act.” passed I think that alone makes her noteworthy, although I will agree the article needs more work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtb1987 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as copyright violation. Article likely written by her publicist. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:37, 21 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photogeochemistry[edit]

Photogeochemistry (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 do not think that this a term with any wide currency: possibly worth a redirect, but I don't know where to TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not going to pretend that this article doesn't have problems. But I don't see anything that leaps out on a cursory examination, and the term itself has at least some currency; a Google Scholar search is fairly productive, with well-cited Science of the Total Environment and Plant and Soil articles early in the results list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Squeamish Ossifrage. The latest paper it shows is from 2013, which in turn cites another paper using the term which I don't think is in the Scholar list. Also one paper in PNAS, which uses the term as a category for identifying the paper. ghytred talk 17:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Interdisciplinary fields are becoming more common, and this one definitely has some practitioners and citations. "Photo geochemistry" may be a variation of the name. — Gorthian (talk) 03:49, 23 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 as an obvious hoax -- Y not? 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jurrien J.B. Le[edit]

Jurrien J.B. Le (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)

Person does not exist upon further research, and sources are completely random. The diction of the page clearly suggest a hoax, so this page qualifies for speedy deletion. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  13:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would hesitate to delete is as a 'blatant' hoax myself, but the nom's comments about the references and the style, coupled (but not furiously...) with the apparent lack of ghits, make me feel that this is an elaborate hoax. The comment from the author on the talk page "Please leave this page on for one more day. PLEASE" convinces me that this is not genuine, and possibly might go as vandalism. Peridon (talk) 14:17, 21 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 Send to draft. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tushies Baby Wipes[edit]

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

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

Non-notable brand. TheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send to draft : I think there's a systemic bias problem here - baby care products don't seem to carry the attention in what we normally consider reliable sources. Even Johnson's Baby Wipes, which I would expect anyone to have become a parent in the last 20 years to instantly recognise, is a redlink, and there is a mere cursory mention in Johnson & Johnson. Does being stacked on the shelves of Boots make a product notable? In the case of Tushies, there are references to the product here, here, here, here and here, all of which seem to be independent, but also say nothing much more than "it's a box of baby wipes - boooring". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft and userfy if at all needed because I'm not seeing any obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy - I don't think it's a bias, I simply think that baby wipes are inherently not notable. Not enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, per SwisterTwister, and while we're at it, let's create more baby goods articles. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGOFCONSUMERBRANDS -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - individual brands of common household products like baby wipes are generally not notable enough for their own articles, except in exceptional cases. However, it would be notable enough for a brief mention in the article on the company that makes it. SJK (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — foxj 04:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hemispheres Tour[edit]

Hemispheres Tour (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)

Redirected this to the band but edit undone by article creator. Notability: No reason given why this tour is in any way worth an article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discussions herein Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Tour. Recreation of non-notable tours. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not seeing why we should keep this. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in search engines to show why this particular tour is notable. Notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of adjectivals and demonyms for Colorado counties[edit]

List of adjectivals and demonyms for Colorado counties (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 proposed this list for deletion with the following arguments: "Let's see: the two exceptions, Broomfield and Denver, are included in the parallel list of Colorado cities. All other counties follow a normal pattern. The usefulness of this list is thus effectively zero. The notability of the subject is close to zero as well. There's a reason we don't have this list for any other state (or similar level in any other country), and there is clearly no reason to make an exception for Colorado, as these are not notable or noteworthy demonyms." The ProD was removed by the article creator with reason "While this list is not particularly noteworthy, there are eight exceptions in the adjectival column and two exceptions in the demonym column that do not follow the expected order." The two demonyms I handled above, the eight adjectival "exceptions" are counties which are also adjectivated by an abbreviation (e.g. Adams County and AdamsCo, Boulder County and BoCo). This rather trivial shorthand doesn't seem like sufficient justification to rebut my deletion proposal. Fram (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is also completely unsourced, and it is unlikely that reliable sources can ever be found for these. bd2412 T 12:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Per above, and even if sourced WP is not a dictionary/slang dictionary/abbreviation dictionary. They can be added to the articles as appropriate, e.g. if sourced and worth adding. But this list serves no purpose.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely silly listcruft. Whoever refers to anything by a demonym related to a county? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced or not, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:33, 21 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. WIll delete "erminal Cycle as well -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal cycle[edit]

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

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

Non-notable artistic works. Article (and author's contribs) seem largely self-promotional. --Non-Dropframe _talk 11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page as it is an identical copy.

"Terminal Cycle" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete both As the nominator says, these duplicate articles fail WP:NOTABILITY and seem to be pure WP:SPAM. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on Jeppiz. It is not spam. Terminal series of the videos is a serious work of a reputable artist. It is strongly suggested for reviewers to get educated in contemporary arts before making any judgments or decisions in regards to contemporary art works. It is unconditionally accepted that one needs to know how to read prior to judging any literary work. Butterbeanne (talk)

• [[11]]
• [[12]]
• [[13]]
• [[14]]
• [[15]]
• [[16]]
• [[17]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterbeanne (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing any coverage of this "serious work of a reputable artist" in independent, in-depth, reliable sources. Coverage by galleries which usually are trying to sell the products doesn't really count as reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / Redirect to Tim White-Sobieski if that gets kept at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim White-Sobieski). I don't see coverage enough for two articles at the moment. —Kusma (t·c) 11:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero coverage from reliable independent sources. Apologies to the editor above, but artist's bios on commercial sites, promo articles, and links to other wikis aren't considered reliable independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]