< 27 October	29 October >

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. Don't usually close early but Members of parliament are usually deemed notable, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. M. Ramesh[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable minor Indian politician. Quis separabit? 23:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep member of parliament according to the article Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is current Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and businessman from Telangana, India; article needs to be expanded, not to be deleted. - Varmapak ^(talk) 20:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Bret[edit]

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

Unsourced for years, and back in 2008 and earlier, plagued by COI incidents by the article's subject. An edit request asking that a claim in the Life section be removed as it was unverifiable (Lecturing at University of Chicago) led me to try to find non-primary sources. In the end I found only his own page, a blog apparently written in opposition to him, a few publisher bios, and random reviews of some of his books. I couldn't find any sources specifically about him or even interviewing him, but searching on him is difficult due to having to weed out listings and store results for his books. Basic conclusion is that he fails WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a few more search terms and did find an interview with him, but it was a Blogspot. -- ferret (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this article should totally deleted. I think if you trim out the unsourced information, you could cite a few book reviews and end up with enough for a stub. 128.135.100.109 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Those reviews might help establish notability for the books, but not the author. The author needs sources that discuss him directly and in detail to establish notability. -- ferret (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Bret says: have to thought of contacting me, or one of my publishers such as JR Press, Biteback Publishing where there is a bio of me, or Dreamspinner Press where there is also a bio of me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.165.58 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, primary sources do not help in establishing notability. Secondary sources, independent of the subject, are required. Please read over WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Bret: Then there's little more that I can say. You have my birth date, my marriage, the list of some books. Are you calling me a liar or saying that I do not exist. This is very strange. I never stated that I lectured at Chicago. Read something like Amazon and you'll see that I exist, as do my books. Remove my Wikipedia if you feel so prejudiced against me. I survived before it appeared and will do so afterwards. Who are these people from Chicago who complained about me? I did a sound and light for Rudolph Valentino at the Roosevelt Theatre in November 1998 where I discussed my opinion of his sexuality, and my life has been hell ever since from detractors. You appear to have joined the list where the former are concerned, if you are believing people from a Twitter site which only has 33 followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.165.58 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, honestly I have no idea what you're talking about. I have linked you the policies that Wikipedia adheres to... I can understand that the subject of an article may feel offended if those policies suggest their article should be deleted, but I otherwise have no knowledge of you, what you may or may not have said, or of any Twitter site that is against you. I do not read Twitter. No one has called you a liar or suggested you do not exist. I once again suggest you read the general notability guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dependent~~ Keep - If the list of books he has written is accurate, and if they were published by reputable publishing companies, then a way must be found to keep the article. Anyone who publishes that number of books (again, if they are legitimate in both senses) needs to have an article, as they are definitely notable BMK (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spot checked his books. Many are published by Robson Press, which seems to be a legit publisher. but others are published by lulu.com, which is a self-publishing firm. A few I saw were published by DaCapo, which, if it is the American firm, definitely is legitimate. So it appears to be a mixed bag. The list of books, however, is not complete: he appears to have published about twice as many books, at least per Bookfinder. [1] BMK (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to check who first published the books, not who currently publishes them It's not unusual for writers whose original publishers won't reprint OOP books to make them available through POD or via self-republishing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I was using Bookfinder to spot check, but I could have clicked on a reprint instead of the original edition. When I looked again (spot check) just now, with "First edition" checked, almost all of them were published by Robson, with one I saw by Carroll & Graf, which is very legit. I don't know Robson, and I can't tell much from their website. They certainly look like a legitimate publisher, and not a self-publishing firm. Until something else comes to light, I going to assume that they're legit. BMK (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't see anything offhand that makes him pass GNG or WP:AUTHOR. There is some suggestion that one of his works may meet GNG. Which work? The article could be renamed to that work and all of the unrelated content can be clipped.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then GNG needs to be changed to cover an author who publishes many books without being the subject of news coverage himself. (Again, if the conditions I reported above are met. BMK (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing GNG isn't a matter for an AFD with low participation. The number of books however shouldn't matter. The number of notable books would matter. Depending on the book, one book could make the author notable. "To kill a mockingbird" would be enough in itself to make Harper Lee notable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am as the same position as User:BMK - "Anyone who publishes that number of books (again, if they are legitimate in both senses) needs to have an article, as they are definitely notable" - this book review on the new york times is already significant enough reporting to suggest wider notability Govindaharihari (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing lots of books does not indicate notability, not by WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, especially as none of the books themselves appear to be notable. In my eyes, the review you've linked doesn't contain any details about Bret, commenting almost entirely on the book, with a few minor mentions of other books. This particular source might lend some notability to his Gable biography, but not to him, in my eyes. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. The article now cites New York Times Book Review coverage of the author, which is pretty much the gold standard for notability for American publishing. When will well-meaning editors here get it through their heads that superficial Google searches can be virtually useless in assessing notability of most books and authors? There's still n book AFD open, I believe, where nobody had noticed that the author had won a Pulitzer Prize and the book got a multipage review in the NYT. This foolishness has to change. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the review is coverage of the book, not the author. If you feel the book is notable, that's a separate topic. Do you have any offline sources to put forward that help establish notability of the author? -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, you're just dead wrong. Creative professionals generally derive their notability from their creative work. There is no rational or principled way to separate the two. When Meryl Streep's performance in a film is reviewed, no reasonable person says "That won't make her notable, just her work". Are you going to argue next that the Kronos Quartet isn't notable? After all, the coverage there is virtually entirely about their work. This blockheaded anti-intellectual attitude that too many editors have that you need celebrity-mode personal life coverage to be notable is amazingly wrongheaded and contrary to the legitimate mission of an encyclopedia. Note that the article on Aeschylus accurately reports there are no reliable sources regarding his life. Just his work. Why don't you put him up for deletion, too? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask that you try to stay civil. A quick review of Kronos Quartet shows several sources that discuss them directly. As for Aeschylus, that sentence should be removed, or changed to state "no contemporary sources", as the entirety of the rest of the section and the personal life section that follows uses 10 or so sources. "Celebrity-mode personal life" coverage isn't what I want to see, but anything that discusses him directly as an author, rather than in passing as part of a review for his book. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that discussion of a creative professional's creative work does not "discuss them directly", then I see no hope for you. It is an attitude almost uniquely confined to attempts to trivialize academics and writers. It is a stupid attitude when damages the encyclopedic value of the Wikipedia project. It is part of a general mode of evaluating significance that leads us to have more in-depth, detailed coverage of the typical Kardashian than of every Nobel Prize winner. Kim Kardashian's article is now about 68K long. Dante Alighieri's is barely 40K. That's where your approach takes us. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view point is to try to follow WP:V and WP:N. AFD is ultimately about evaluating notability, not content or length. I think it's clear that I do not believe David Bret's notability has been established according to policy. As for the rest, I happen to agree with you about Kardashian's and the like, compared to academics, but sometimes there's simply nothing further to say on a topic. It does not indicate more notability or less, simply less verifiable facts available. Of course, 98% of verifiable facts for Kardashian's and the like are trivial unimportant drivel, but I don't think either of us would be successful in an attempt to cull it down. -- ferret (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to interject to associate myself with all that HW said. Ferret, you're on the wrong track. for a writer, their work is what's important, not if People magazine or Page 6 covers scandals about their personal life. BMK (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he's a Pulitzer winner it stands to reason that he is notable. Can you share a source thats shows he won the Pulitzer? A book can be notable without providing it's author notability. They have to meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR which they can meet by one book or fail to meet by one book. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have been as clear as I could have been about the Pulitzer issue; that's involved in this AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla), where you can also see me try to do a faux-Jon-Stewart-rant without warming up enough. What the AFDs had in common was that the noms didn't turn up NYTimes reviews before starting the deletion discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not plan to comment further on this AFD, as I do not see any productive value in continuing borderline uncivil discussions. I believe my position is clearly and well stated, and leave it to the closer to make a decision on whether it holds water. -- ferret (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing uncivil in an editor telling you forcefully, and with reasoned arguments, that you are wrong. "Civility" doesn't mean holding your hand and petting it during a discussion. Grow up, please.BMK (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Authors are notable because of their work, as artists for their art, scientists for their discoveries, etc. The routine fats of their life are not what makes someone notable. HW has it exactly right. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BMK, DGG and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above. I am engaged in adding sources. At the moment there are nine citations, all to significant reliable publications. I expect there to be several more before I am done. It was claimed above that Bret did not meet WP:AUTHOR. Well point 3 of that guideline says: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I contend that Bret clearly meets the "significant collective body of work" standard, and that reviews of individual works help to establish this. Therefore I reject Ferret's contention that reviews of Bret's books are irrelevant, and I feel that the Delete !votes based on that contention above should be given low weight as not correctly based on policy. A review of a single book might say nothing about the notability of an author. But when that author writes book after book, and those books are consistently taken notice of by being reviewed in major publications such as Kirkus, The Telegraph, The Independent, Publisher's Weekly, and the New York Times, that shows that the body of work and therefore the author is notable, even if no other coverage is available. DES ^(talk) 02:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCertainly merits a keep vote as pointed out above, meeting the Criteria of WP:AUTHOR.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are now 19 citations to reliable sources. I am in the process of adding OCLC cites for the various books. These verify the publication information, and also provide information on the library holdings of each title. So far each has been held by several hundred libraries who report to OCLC, which not all libraries do. Note that libraries very rarely acquire self-published or vanity press books. DES ^(talk) 14:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've used Brets books on at least ~~two~~ three FAs (Hattie Jacques, John Le Mesurier and George Formby) and have his work on Rudolph Valentino for a future update. These are all reliable sources and have been checked as such as part of the FAC, as they are from reputable publishers. – SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11) by User:Jimfbleak. MER-C 14:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Cuff Magazine[edit]

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

Not notable. No external refs. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:20, 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. KTC (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Gallifuoco[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level, has only played in a cup game against a non pro team. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. As stated in the nomination, his cup appearance does not confer notability as it was against non-fpl opposition. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Can be recreated if / when the players actually plays. Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NFOOTBALL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - presently fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, despite having appeared in the semi-final round of the 2015 FFA Cup. Should he make an appearance in the final on 7 November, a deletion review could be requested. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aflah Madasseri[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Second place in a tech competition whose overall notability is questionable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person appears to be non-notable per WP:BIO. In the alternative, WP:BLP1E would apply, since the individual is low-profile and the won event is not significant. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 18-year-olds are rarely notable in engineering, and to show they are we need multiple reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added some more info. and reliable sources to page. The draft is about Indian inventor. Now it looks WP:BIO. Sources materials are also added from Indian News paper like The New Indian Express and The Times of India. Kate A. Steel (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a nice human interest type of story newspapers love, but that's about it. He didn't even get first prize. Not notable enough for BLP1E. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a rather brief notice in a local edition of a major newspaper is not significant coverage. Perhaps he will become notable enough for an article one day, but not yet. --bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It's clear from the article as well as comments here, that this young man is not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this is on the overdue for closing list, I must confess it looks like BLP1E.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the arguments made by non-socks/meats largely favor deletion, the margin also makes it safe to err on the side of caution at the alleged request by the subject, themselves, to delete the article. slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajitabh Bose[edit]

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

I'm not speedying this because there is what is possibly a world record holder for the most insignificant "claim to notability". Essentially this is WP:NOTNEWS; coverage for one human interest story does not constitute real notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains enough resources/refrences which justifies the notability of the article. The references includes big newspapers like Hindustan Times, New Delhi Times and The Avenue Mail. It also include references from one of the biggest Indian News Channel, which is India TV. —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheLongTone (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is a national recorder and has published the SMALLEST LOVE STORY BOOK. It is quite amazing and worthy enough to be in Wikipedia.^[1] 08:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

He is also a renowned film maker.^[2]^[3]

^ "SMALLEST LOVE STORY BOOK | India Book of Records –". indiabookofrecords.in. Retrieved 2014-08-21.
^ "Being Filmy Behind The Lens- Ajitabha Bose;". indiacafe24.com. Retrieved 2014-07-11.
^ "Interview With Ajitabh Bose, a Famous Short Filmmaker And Writer". venturesden.com. Retrieved 2014-01-21.

Delete per WP:BLP1E. I don't think that this event qualifies as "highly significant", and there don't appear to exist any sources that cover anything else about this person that is also notable. If I missed something, or if there are sources that show otherwise, please let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to main article space. and draft and userfy until there's more of an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has good number of references to denote his notability. And his book's article (The Pocket Love Story) is also available on Wikipedia. TheNewLog talk 09:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is about as trivial an accomplishment as I can find on Wikipedia. We are not a web host for every author. He got in the news for one cycle. I don't see any significant coverage about him. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This vote was changed by 163.47.141.50 (possible WP:VAND). I'm changing the vote back to the statement submitted by Bearian. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bearian - Are you referring to the references cited within the article? I believe that all I saw were references about the record itself, and not so much about the book or the author himself - not enough to signify significant coverage. But I want to ask you about the sources you saw in case I missed something :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC) - Striking out, as I didn't notice that Bearian's vote was modified until just now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one other point that has yet to be mentioned that this article was deleted six months ago for lack of notability. While additional citations have been provided, I think Bearian's comments make the most cogent argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would be nice if I !voted. The rationale is in my comment above. One last thing. This editor has been attempting to go through AfC with this article since March. See those discussions HERE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You have to chuckle at the optimistic exuberance of Indian editors sometimes. The "world record" is hilarious. The book article probably also needs to go.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably??? I think you mean certainly. The ludicrous book is now also at afdTheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone, I have no idea who has written this article but kindly don't refer my book as "The ludicrous book". Have some respect for the people. I would request Wikipedia to remove this article as soon as possible. It is highly humiliating for me to hear this comments for my book. Thank you. Ajitabha Bose (Chairperson, Bose Documentaries Ltd.)

Keep. Although the article is written very poorly with tall claims, it is a fact that the person is notable and has published books. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have cleaned up the article a bit and removed mention of the award which itself is not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: you've made the article even less notable now. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Asymmetry#Other uses. KTC (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except "Aysmmetric Video Game" is a worthless title due to the misspelling and capitalization; this should have been moved before AfD'ing. I've moved it all (the redirect, the deleted revisions and the talk page) to "Asymmetric video game" and left the closure result as it was (delete then redirect). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aysmmetric Video Game[edit]

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

Appears to be an original essay. No sources given and thus no way to determine if this is a valid and notable concept. PROD declined without explanation by an IP. Safiel (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, the article is simply an essay on a topic that doesn't appear to have any reliable secondary sources as far as I can find. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. The article as it stands is completely unsourced, which isn't acceptable for a wikipedia article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blow it up and start over, or if nobody's willing to reasearch and write a sources stub on the topic yet, delete this then redirect Asymmetric video game to Asymmetry#Other uses where it is covered -- The topic is something I've been looking forward to reading our coverage of (Category:Asymmetrical multiplayer video games wikilinks to asymmetry and multiplayer video game) but the convergence of both aspects is a unique concept that has been garnering growing coverage amongst the industry [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Definitely something that can be written about with some minimal effort. But "Aysmmetric" is a mess beyond redemption. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:19, 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. KTC (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecurity strategy 5 Layout Capability Maturity Model[edit]

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

Original research by the editor. The article has been turned down at Draft:Cybersecurity strategy 5 Layout Capability Maturity Model. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The readily identified source of this is the contributor's own company spiel about its service. (Compare the within linked pdf to this article.) As such, it appears to be purely promotional. I do not find any evidence that this model or the company that offers it have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hybrid between promotional material and an introductory manual for the system. WP is the place for neither. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 17:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a misunderstanding of WP:ENC and it fails WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I AM She 2012[edit]

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

Incomplete article without sources conform WP:RS. Article gives no extra information compared with the mother article I AM She – Miss Universe India, so is superfluous. The Banner talk 19:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless WP:CFORK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is typical with User:Imtitanium's articles, this one makes negative claims about celebrities which are not supported by the sources. But in any case, the subject doesn't seem to be notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:14, 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 speedy close. The page actually falls under WP:CSD#G4. (non-admin closure) kashmiri ^TALK 21:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faqr-e-Iqbal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article by one of Sultan ul Faqr Publications devotees. Unremarkable book failing WP:N (no reviews except self-published reviews), likely by an unremarkable author (leader of a small religious group in Lahore). kashmiri ^TALK 17:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC) kashmiri ^TALK 17:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The article does not seem promotional in the least because it meets the policy of WP:Reliable sources and WP:Third party sources. The article also adheres to the policy of WP:V and WP:N according to the Wikipedia statistics which show 31241 views in the last thirty days.[10] Markangle11 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a principal contributor to the article, you are required to abstain from !voting. Thanks. kashmiri ^TALK 21:22, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amiruddin Malak[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent sources; even if every word is true, this person is not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe creator of the article has not provided enough content or references. The article does not meet WP:N.JugniSQ (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and not credible sources cited. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG. Bearian's point is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Jacobs (artist)[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any No evidence of notability perhaps too soon. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 17:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 17:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a self-promotional article. Lacks sources. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo WP:RS.JugniSQ (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We are not WP:LINKEDIN.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of hits, just none for this Bert Jacobs. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Allen Couture[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and I can't find any No evidence of notability. The article is nothing but an attempt to advertised the non-notable company. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails to meet the criteria of notability.The links used are not Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remi143 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We are not a business directory, no claim of notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches returned no evidence of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. S. Prakash[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and I can't find any No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's a well-established Art director in Telugu Film Industry. I think it should be kept as there are quite a few references too.Karthiksrinivas (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Well established" isn ot notable. I see no claims of any award. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Person is not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Ian-Sangala[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Another young entrepreneur with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in secondary sources. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of full disclosure, Brandonomari (talk · contribs) blanked the nominator's deletion rationale and some of the AfD templates, which I reverted. He or she replaced them with the following text, which should nevertheless be considered: Here is a notable source http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200242/open4business/2052/open4business_october_2015/7. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A notable source http://goearlsfield.blogspot.co.uk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komalakbar (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I simply see no better improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no evidence of notability in search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep'. Can always be nominated in the future if the condition of the article doesn't improve. (non-admin closure) Wikienglish123 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter D. O'Hearn[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable? as the best I found was this and this and this would certainly need to be improved and sourced if kept. With this said, this hasn't changed much since starting in September 2007 by an Iohearn. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, better results for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject user Bearcat. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sulka (actress)[edit]

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

fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication of meeting GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes and there's no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of passing PORNBIO. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. References in the article are passing mentions and blog postings. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 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. Ultimately whether this meets notability comes down not to the independent sources (reliability or veracity of their claims notwithstanding) but from significance. In this case multiple passing or non-central mentions and chronologies do not accrue by some formula to the multiple significant sources required. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus per deletion review. 103.6.159.69 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Ashmall[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Simply having a claim of being the oldest person in the world is not sufficient for having a separate article. Part of a series of stubs and page creations by a now-banned sockpuppet. The one source listed is possibly a WP:BLOG and only seems to be citing his own obituary as a source. We have no evidence about the reliability of Ms. Julia Hynes who wrote it. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a blog it is a manuscript from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. A blog is a chronological format, it has no standing on reliability and more than the format of a newspaper does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOPAGE as usual. Actually, the Hynes piece is reliable [11] (Harvard owns a copy, if that tells you anything) but Ashmall is just a datapoint. EEng (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the single source IS a reliable source but it's still a single source. That doesn't qualify as notable. OTOH, I learned a new word from this article, "necronym", so it's not a total loss. But what the heck is a "secular Catholic Priest." David in DC (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Church's primary concern right now is with the sexular priests. EEng (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians recently filed (and many recent ones closed as keep, a few redirected or merged into lists), I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he was best known for being "the first person known to reach the age of 103." Do you think being the first person to reach each age is notable? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pending review by GRG" - Umm, GRG is not the default source for notability on Wikipedia. Notability is defined here as significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, independent of one another and of the subject. GRG governs what goes on the GRG tables. Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service for expanding GRG's audience. David in DC (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolt misread GNG as GRG. Dolt strikes his comment. D'oh!. I apologize. David in DC (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. EEng (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the sources only confirm he lived until 103. There is no source that he was in fact the first "verified" (whatever the hell that means) person to be a centenarian or to reach 103. There are other individuals from before his time at Longevity myths and Longevity claims and this feels like WP:OR to state that Ashmall was the first person "verified" to reach 103 as we don't have any sources that even say that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete. Assumption that being the oldest automatically confers notability is incorrect. Subject must have sufficient encyclopedic coverage to justify an article. In this case there is no such coverage. Therefore clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of good references here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all passing mentions, mostly of his passing in fact. There is literally nothing more that can be added from sources like [12][13][14][15] etc. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As expanded, the article supports the rather clear claim of notability with appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Earlier votes, prior to the expansion, should be reconsidered or given lesser weight. Alansohn (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What claim of notability? The statements that he was "the second person verified to reach the age of 100" or "the first person known to reach the age of 103" have no sources and otherwise he was man from Elwick named for his uncle, was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest and moved to Esh before dying in New House, County Durham. Technically all we know based on reliable sources is that he was a priest who lived to 103 year old in the 17th and 18th centuries. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read the article by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research to get that information. It is a long article but worth the reading. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say exactly that? This version has three footnotes. The second is a GRG table from 2007 saying "Oldest validated centenarians by year" with no details and sourcing "Julia Hynde" [sic]. The Hynes piece describes 3 reported and 5 calculated ages with Ashmall being one. She reiterates that Ashmall lived to age 104 which is wrong but generally I don't think is particular dispute. However, she in fact says "If Reverend Ferdinand Ashmall really was 104 years old at his death and William Badger died at a similar age, there was likely to have been someone dying at a later age in the population at risk of 22 to 25 million in England between 1537 and 1800... meaning that she even admits that she believes that he wasn't the first 104-year-old or the oldest one or anything like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was the first person recorded to reach 103 or 104. It is a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear situation, or in this case an old person dying with no one taking notice. Someone has to record it for us to know about it. Civil recording of births, marriages and deaths in England and Wales didn't start until 1 July 1837. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

You keep saying that but no source actually says that. This is classic synthesis of sources: the source that have been hand-picked all provide examples of individuals less than 103 before that date. Then, using WP:OR to state that anything else is a Longevity_claims#Past (see Zhang Daoling or Chen Tuan or Live Larsdatter there) or a Longevity myths, you claim that this was the first "record" claim (again, whatever that means) which conveniently just claims that the other claims don't count. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy that only gets solved when one of the sources that "count" finds another person. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Performing mathematics is not original research, any more than counting the years between birth and death, to add an age-at-death, that isn't mentioned in an obituary. Mathematics is objective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What math? Math is "he's 103 years old". OR is "he's the first to be 'recorded' as 103 because we ignore the other people who claim to have been 103 before him." It's not objective to say that he is the "first" anything. If your argument is that he is the first person claimed to be 103 past the 16th century and before the 19th century, that's what he is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Clearly notable. The first person in all of human history to reach not just age 100, 101 or even 102 but to reach the AGE OF ONE HUNDRED AND THREE is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.59.137 (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — 166.176.59.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, nothing says he's the first person to reach 103. EEng (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~::: It says "Known for First person known to reach the age of 103" at this page. 166.176.57.4 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

As discussed elsewhere, no source seems to say that. EEng (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable in many reliable archives and peer-reviewed literature, and passes WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE by a mile. Referenced in many books ([16],[17],[18],[19]), as well as national and university archives ([20],[21]). This article is a clear keep. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personally don't trust the dates given, he could very well have been 80 when he died and I personally would not trust the word of the church on this...didn't Methuselah live to be 900+ so why is a 103 old man important?--Ste moc 04:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you trust a biblical claim to 969 but not a documented claim to 103? *facepalm* -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~::: God, the GRG haters just doesn't understand how the science works. 166.176.57.4 (talk) — 166.176.57.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~

Whether or not that's actually the case, we certainly do know how Wikipedia works. EEng (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying the 'people' that old us that Metuselah lived to be 969 are the same people telling us this person lived to be 103...--Ste moc 21:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The story of Methuselah was written over 2,000 years ago. Ferdinand Ashmall's story was written in 1798. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Oshwah. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This person is cited in various reliable soures, which indicates notability. Bodgey5 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Only possibly signifiant coverage I see is the Hynes piece. Which incorrectly, if any of this is true at all, gives his death age (aka-"reach" age, max age, final age...) as 104, the most important (to some) piece of information about him, they apparently got wrong. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's one of only five known centenarians to have died before 1800 then he's clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he's not. There's others listed at Longevity_claims#Past. Do they not count? Either (a) those aren't based on reliable sources (and then why are they there are all) or (b) they are admittedly based on reliable sources but not the requisite "reliable reliable" sources that count for when people want to call them "recorded" or "verified" or whatever new term they like (which is really one source in all of this). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only four people on that list died before 1800! So in what way does that negate what I said? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still refusing to accept the concept of age verification, when clearly the consensus outside of Wikipedia is that it's important? It's not about some sources being "super reliable", it's about the fact that some sources actually attempt to prove longevity claimants' ages, and others don't. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Do we only care about fact when there is a specific interest in the person reporting to "prove" something? So are only the GRG and the Max Plank sources reliable or relevant sources? Then why are we including anything else from the other sources? Is a newspaper who reports someone's birth and death date trying to "prove" a longevity claim? Are the articles that reference Ashmall's birth and death date trying to "prove" anything? Do the other sources not count? As I said before, are they only good when they back up the sources you like and garbage when they disagree? Are we now up to four sources that count, and the rest be damned (unless they support the GRG)? You already tried a nonsensical "all newspapers are not reliable sources" RSN discussion which went nowhere, is this just another round in the "here are the sources that matter"? So we don't even look for a source (of any type) that actually says this was the first recorded 103-year-old person and any other articles that have sources should just be treated as persona non grata and ignored as if they don't exist? That's the problem with this walled-garden idiocy, everything that exists only matters if the GRG approves of it, if not, this garden must be kept pristine with its own theories and statements of facts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources help it to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Which sources? and in what way do they help? I cannot see it but I'm open to persuasion. David in DC (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very easy to find sources, e.g. [22]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TPP Law Limited[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing good (aside from this) for this basically unacceptable article and simply looking at the article says it all. I'm not sure who "Mjohnson" was but they moved this from their userspace in March 2010 and it has basically stayed the same since then. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - rather blatant WP:PROMOTION page that even if was reliable would probably need to be completely deleted and started over. However I don't see any significant coverage and I think this fails WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging interested subject users MBisanz and Bearian. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a non-notable law firm according to my usual standards. There are no notable lawyers involved at any level of ownership. They are not an old firm with a long history. They are not unique as a boutique law firm. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. They appear to do only what any law firm should do to represent their clients zealously. This page is little more than spam. We are not a web host for for-profit law firms. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IUVSTA[edit]

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

A lot of issues, not one of the CSDs, so nominate for deletion. 333 -blue 08:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm seeing some coverage, but mostly passing mentions and primary sources. Absent a demonstration of significant secondary coverage, I'd say it fails WP:ORG. Although, a better deletion nomination statement from 333-blue would have been nice, to explain what these many non-CSD issues you see are. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with NickW557's comment. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Scientists, Developers and Faculties[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As with the previously deleted version of this article, there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or other criteria for notability of organizations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not clear that the organization is even functioning anymore. All the website links are dead and there doesn't seem to be a new website. The journal links are live but nothing seems to have been published. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The organization does run meetings as listed at a meeting organizer's website. No coverage by reliable secondary sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. Pinging Gigs, Ukexpat and Kinu. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are dead links, can be re initiated after rewriting the article. Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 00:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)]

Delete - no evidence of notability on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of largest companies by revenue. KTC (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest automotive companies by revenue[edit]

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

Redundant to List of largest companies by revenue. In the largest companies by revenue article, it is literally just one click on "Industry" for the table to be sorted by Industry. Since "automotive" is right at the top, you can read off the companies that easy. r a y u k k. 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. r a y u k k. 20:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely agree with nom's rationale. WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Noah (band). KTC (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Kurnia Albert[edit]

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

This was successfully prodded, and has now been re-created. He apparently does not meet the notability requirements of WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Prodded this as it fails WP:MUSIC and has some serious BLP issues, should redirect to the band Noah (band).Karst (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from me as well as I simply see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 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. KTC (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brunel Classic Gold[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Carries network audio except for 4 hours per week. NN. Szzuk (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Classic Gold Digital Network?, with maybe a mention at Classic Gold Digital Network#Regional stations? All the rebranding and lack of citations make this difficult to understand and present clearly. With a redirect the information here is available as a starting for anyone who wants to find references and expand it in a clearer manner at a later date. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem there is no sources and to be totally honestly If redirected it won't ever be improved anyway, I usually prefer redirect but in this case IMHO it's pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Szzuk. Nothing shows the notability of this station. Also agree with Davey2010's rationale regarding a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vadde raju[edit]

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

India caste. No references. According to a couple of unreliable blogs, they are the same as the Raju. Bgwhite (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks to me that they are also the same as Vaddera (alternatively Vadde, Vadderaju or Waddera). Is this true? Do we have three articles on the same people? If so, then Merge would seem sensible. Dcs002 (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get the expert, Oh Sitush..... Bgwhite (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one more relist, in the hopes of getting someone familiar with Indian castes Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 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 keep. Sources aren't perfect but notability does seem to be there, Give it a year or 2 & I'd imagine sources will improve. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halle Mordu[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Sources provided have no editorial control. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources to establish notability. Systemic bias is a bug, not a feature. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided are reliable. Sources with no editorial control or oversight cannot be used to establish notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with The Drover's Wife regarding Wikipedia's problem with WP:BIAS. There are additional sources available at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, specifically in the first link of simple web searches, that could be useful to perform Quality improvement efforts on the article. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timespace (film)[edit]

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

The film does not meet the notability requirements Wikipedia:Notability (films). Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I cannot find any secondary sources about this film to indicate its possible notability. If others can find sources in their own investigations, I'd be happy to revise my stance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and is purely WP:SELFPROMOTION at the moment. Should things change in the future it can be resurrected. MarnetteD|Talk 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Examiner.com is on the en.wikipedia spam blacklist, for justifiable reasons (rebundled, sometimes plagiarized content, with minimal editorial control), although the review the article mentions was actually written for the site. Nevertheless, even if we accept their review as a reliable, third-party source, that's the only one that I can locate, which falls short of our inclusion standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was clearly written by an insider who didn't feel like adding sources for anything. HalloweenNight (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

Delete It exists and can be watched, and while not a terrible film it has not gained commentary and analysis in reliable sources. WP:NF is failed. If sources come forward in the future, a resurrection can be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:24, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scenario Voting[edit]

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

Microsoft user feedback process that seems to have been used only during the development of Vista. Notability is neither asserted nor substantiated by secondary sources. Prod was contested. Lagrange 613 11:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 12:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 12:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 12:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose unless this can be mentioned elsewhere as I'm not seeing much. Pinging past users Robofish, J Di and Merope. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good lord, I tried deleting this nine years ago. Twice. -- Merope 15:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software stub article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Article history has a link to this softpedia press release. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability in searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by Acroterion. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 12:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaraAZReed[edit]

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

Technopat (talk) 11:01, 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. KTC (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Redžović[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet either WP:KICK or WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet either WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, NBOX, and KICK. Hasn' achieved notability yet in any field.Mdtemp (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Protest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a rap song by Indian artist. Fails WP:NSONG, WP:CHART. Song has got no award, not listed in any chart, neither a best selling or even moderate selling song. Only contemporary mention in some media which every Indian song gets. Human3015^TALK 10:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Essentially agree with TopGun, Mar4d, Smsarmad, Dream Focus, Northamerica1000, and Thesteve, from the prior failed deletion attempt. In summary: WP:NSONG, WP:CHART are subsumed by WP:NOTE. The article passes WP:NOTE. The topic has received ample secondary source coverage in multiple different reliable sources independent of the subject itself. Therefore, the article should be kept and retained on Wikipedia for encyclopedic value for our future readers and editors, alike. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was already discussed to lengths in the previous AfD. Article amply passes WP:NMG and this is shown in the wide coverage in multiple reliable sources. Awards, chart listings or being 'best-selling' is not a sole prerequisite criteria to satisfy WP:NMG. Mar4d (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the GNG with plenty of reliable sources, including the Times of India and the BBC The Steve 07:30, 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 merge to Trade Air. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trade-Air destinations[edit]

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

Unsourced, relevent airline appears to fail WP:GNG and has no article. Mdann52 (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists of destinations almost certainly fail WP:NOTDIR~~, and when it's a list of destinations for a seemingly nonnotable airline, there's even less reason to keep it. In this case, with no parent article, there's no point to it in the first place~~. Nyttend (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No parent article, unsourced, fails GNG. sst✈^discuss 10:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 10:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge but consider renaming it to match parent article Trade Air. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from keep to merge after consideration of later posts. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding it, but it's still an inappropriate directory-style page, content that doesn't belong in the airline article, let alone as a standalone page. Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have had a global AfD on this type of articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations which has just been closed as a snowball keep. Doesnt mean that this could not be better referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball kept because of a combination of factors: a pile of people who didn't care about our inclusion criteria, and the nomination's huge scope, which resulted in problems such as the unintentional inclusion of Dubrovnik Airline because it was incorrectly included in the category in question. The latter isn't an issue here, while presumably the closing administrator here will ignore votes without rationales like yours, or "it's useful"/"irrational" votes such as those that swamped the original. Nyttend (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trade Air. Standalone lists of airline destinations are created due to article size considerations, but this is a very short list. sst✈^discuss 12:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trade Air. Although we do actually list airline destinations (e.g. see American Airlines destinations, British Airways destinations), there is not enough information here to sustain a stand-alone article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:52, 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 keep. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deck McGuire[edit]

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

Never made the bigs. Last season played was 2014 per Baseball Reference. Fair accomplishment in college, but not enough to meet NCOLLATH. Obviously fails NBASEBALL. John from Idegon (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite what nominator says, he did play in 2015. I believe he has enough coverage to pass GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage to pass GNG. By the way, Baseball Reference didn't have the 2015 stats for some reason at the time of the AFD. I noticed that last night when I was looking up a few players.--Yankees10 16:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Sources are all routine coverage that any good player receives. Perfect example of a guy who should have a bio at Baseball-Reference Bullpen but not here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Alex (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Article could use some improvements, things can be fixed. Sourcing is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appli Archives[edit]

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

Does not seem notable. No good sources. TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I seeing nothing obviously better. Pinging tagger Josve05a. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users The1337gamer, Salvidrim, Czar, NinjaRobotPirate and Esquivalience. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, my skill at finding sources for non-English mobile games is not great. But I see few hits on a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. It's mentioned in Sony's official Playstation blog, but I don't really see anything else. Further searches revealed little in the way of coverage in various databases, such as Metacritic. It's possible there is Japanese-language coverage out there, and, if so, the article can be recreated (with better sourcing). If anyone can turn up better sourcing than me, then feel free to discount my vote. I guess what pushes me over the edge from uncertainty to deletion is that the article seems a bit promotional. I don't see any reason why it should discuss pricing information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Never close on one !vote but MQS is correct - indian/sri lanka films/blps etc are always given leeway as the sources aren't as brilliant as UK/US, Anyway meets BASIC (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges (film)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NFILM in that there are no independent reviews of the film provided, no evidence that it is historically notable, has not recieved any major awards and is not recognised by the sri lankan national archive. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being notable enough through The Sunday Times (1), Lankaweb, The Sunday Times (2), Daily News, Halanada, The Daily Mirror, and Srilankan Star. We certainly do not expect a Sri Lankan film to have the same notability as does Star Wars, but if it has the sourcess available to meet WP:NF we can have an article. The available independent reviews prove notability even if not currently used. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:54, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge 88[edit]

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

Tagged as fails WP:MUSIC sice 2012. A follow-up of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stagebeast above Staszek Lem (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged this in 2012, and while I see a handful of mentions and notes of forthcoming appearances in Dutch newspapers, I have not seen coverage yet that rises to WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in searches shows it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppers Stop[edit]

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

Advert of a business. Sources all are PR. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Extensive coverage in India's largest financial dailies like The Economic Times and Hindu Business Line. Company is also listed on Bombay Stock Exchange(BSE) and National Stock Exchange of India (NSE). See today's performance of company on BSE and NSE. --Human3015^TALK 07:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreed. You provided google search results. I click a couple of top ones, they are nothing but stock charts: [23]. Please provide articles with significant non-routine independent coverage.Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: What do you mean by "independent"? The Economic Times and The Hindu are largest selling and most respectful dailies of India. I gave that chart which show they are listed at Bombay Stock Exchange means it is highly notable company. I provided google search because it was having so many independent coverage so I decided to give google search, you clicked just top 2 sites but you should look beyond. Still I will provide some [24], [25], this news provieds list of all news on ET of Shoppers stop. The Hindu, The Hindu, Times of India calling it India's "prominent retail group, NDTV, Rediff, Chandru Raheja is owner of Shoppers Stop and he is listed at 31st position in list of Indian billionaires at Forbes and forbes also talks about his company shoppers stop in same news. This is what I got on quick search. I can keep going on.--Human3015^TALK 18:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct they are independent. Now look at the two other bolded words. Pleas keep in mind that press-releases, interviews, descriptions of current operation status, etc. are routine coverage which is not counted towards notability in wikipedia. Every company churns press-releases and other promotional stuff nonstop. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With your definition there should not be any company related article on Wikipedia. You seem to be in mode of denial. Actually this AfD should be speedy close as keep. But anyway, I have given more than enough sources of India's leading news papers and also Forbes. One of above source of Economic Times listed Shopppers Stop at 238th place in India's top 500 companies list. Forbes listed Company's owner as 31st richest Indian. Company itself listed at Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) to which you seem to be not much aware. BSE is same for India what New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street is for USA. BSE is among top 10 stock exchange markets in the world. This company has been the case study in management schools. Read it.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] --Human3015^TALK 20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most successful Indian retailers. Non-trivial coverage in several books and news articles. utcursch | talk 04:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ray (2010). Supply Chain Management for Retailing. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. pp. 400–. ISBN 978-0-07-014504-7.
^ Marketing Management_Kazmi. Excel Books India. pp. 232–. ISBN 978-93-5062-052-6.
^ Case Studies in Marketing Management. Pearson Education India. pp. 101–. ISBN 978-81-317-6139-7.
^ Berman Barry (1989). Retail Management: A Strategic Approach. Mac Millan. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-81-317-3376-9.
^ Kenneth E. Clow; Donald Baack (28 March 2011). Cases in Marketing Management. SAGE Publications. pp. 210–. ISBN 978-1-4129-9603-7.
^ Patricia Et Al Seybold (1 November 2009). Capitalising On Customers - An Executive S Guide To Crm, 1E. Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd. pp. 166–. ISBN 978-81-259-1874-5.
^ Gibson G. Vedamani (1 January 2003). Retail Management (4th Edition). Jaico Publishing House. pp. 95–. ISBN 978-81-7992-151-7.
^ U.C. Mathur (1 November 2010). Retail Management: Text and Cases. I. K. International Pvt Ltd. pp. 457–. ISBN 978-93-80578-66-8.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 14000 employees, $ 290 Million revenue and coverage in acceptable media is sufficient to keep. But the article should be improved, it is written like an advertisement. Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Anand[edit]

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

Article's two references are both to brief quotes by the article's subject, one on the kind of music played by the radio station she works for and the other for how she feels about the price of a pair of sunglasses she is considering buying. Neither reference is "about" the article's subject. This article requires references that are non-trivial and that are from independent, reliable, verifiable sources to be retained. Quotes about musical tastes and thoughts on sunglasses do not constitute notability. KDS4444^Talk 05:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real assertion of notability from the sources provided. Does not seem to meet the WP:GNG. Not all radio personalities are notable from the standpoint of an encyclopedia. EricSerge (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced, and written very like an advertisement. Makes enough of a claim of notability that a properly written and properly sourced article could potentially be kept, but that fails to describe this article as written. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nominator should have marked this for CSD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches show it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Families in Coronation Street[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT without encyclopedic or navigational use. No evidence of WP:LISTN. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence whatsoever of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Introduction is poorly written, but if the grammar intentional, it suggests a hoax page: there is no relation between Coronation Street and Emmerdale Farm other than being shown on the same network channel. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. List of Coronation Street characters could, I suppose, be expanded to group the characters by family. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 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, noting that RussianMuslims and Lmoravidmo are socks of an old master. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Rome[edit]

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

Not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. RussianMuslims (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose silly nom by trollish editor. I think setting this up is his only unreverted edit. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable topic, multiple reliable, independent sources. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a clearly Russian religious propaganda aimed at war mobilization against the ottoman.--RussianMuslims (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

snowball Keep - nomination without merits acceptable in wikipedia. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fringe idea which has failed to gain any support among scholars. There may be just a case for including a brief passing mention of the theory in some article such as Constantinople or Istanbul, but there is no basis for a free-standing article on the subject. --Lmoravidmo (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note New account. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - established notable topic with lots of sources. Content disputes over alleged errors should be handled on the article's talkpage, and based on reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 05:12, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Egalitarian Universe[edit]

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

No indication of notability on the part of the author or the book; only primary sources. General Ization ^Talk 01:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by a user named Indiabooks, so possibly advertising. Gparyani (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and promotional. Only sources are from the author and a marketplace where you can buy the book. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Only primary sources and no additional sources found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:08, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Briggs[edit]

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

Maybe it's just that crossfit athletics are an up-and-coming sector of sports that just isn't receiving coverage, but I'm not finding any significant coverage of this individual. 95% of the sources come from crossfit.com or related pages. TOOSOON? Primefac (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

95% seems accurate, but there are some independent sources. I just added one from the San Diego Union Tribune, which is a mainstream newspaper.Rracecarr (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh Possibly notable but who wants to work on this?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Holy See Supdiop (T🔹C) 11:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy See (Vatican City)[edit]

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

This is an odd and unuseful disambiguation page. The Holy See and Vatican City are two different topics and they shouldn't be confused with one another. The Holy See is NOT the Vatican City (and vice versa). Any confusion has already been mitigated by having ((confused)) hatnotes at the top of both pages. The way it's titled now also makes it an WP:INCOMPDAB, which is not a desirable situation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This shouldn't be titled as this, per WP:INCOMPDAB. If kept, I would suggest a move to Holy See (disambiguation). My initial thoughts were that this could be saved as I found a third entry, however, Tavix is quite right that Vatican City is not called the Holy See. Any confusion anyone has between the two would be easily cleared up by reading the relevant articles, which have links to each other and now a hatnote. I would suggest a double hatnote to the two other entries. Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that can be mitigated by adding a ((for)) template to Holy See under the current one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Holy See with ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)). Peter James (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't make any sense for the reasons I said above. I's an implausible search term anyway so we don't have to worry about people using "Holy See (Vatican City)" to find what they're looking for (But which one would they be looking for? You can't know that. See WP:XY.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense, as it's probably the title that would be used if Holy See had to be disambiguated from other topics called "Holy See" - i.e. it's the Vatican City one not the Cilicia one - in the same way Bishop of Edmonton (London) is to distinguish from Bishop of Edmonton (Alberta); it doesn't mean the Bishop of Edmonton is also London, or the Bishop of London. WP:XY would be for titles such as Holy See/Vatican City, which would suggest a combined article (or a subpage). Peter James (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we want a location disambiguator, it'd be most proper to use Holy See (Rome), since it's the Diocese of Rome. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but "Vatican City" is equally valid: "has Vatican City as its sovereign territory". Peter James (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go along with that, especially since it's been mentioned that there are other Holy Sees. Redirect it then. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Tavix's reasoning above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be the perfect example of a useless disambiguation page. And the main article already has a distinguish form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalloweenNight (talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless disambiguation as explained above.--Staberinde (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Holy See。You can't expect everyone to know that there is only one Holy See, why punish people who put the disambiguator just in case, or simply copy/paste it from the CIA World Factbook or somewhere? Siuenti (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Holy See. Indeed, you can't expect everyone to know that there is only one Holy See, since, next to the Holy See of Rome, there is the Holy See of Antioch, the Holy See of Cilicia, and a whole bunch of Holy Sees of the East. Also, the term "Holy See (Vatican City)" or "Holy See (Vatican)" is commonly found as a disambiguation outside of Wikipedia ([26],[27],[28],[29]). --Lambiam 00:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, redirects are cheap, is doesn't hurt anything to redirect it just in case. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alphabet Inc.. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of assets owned by Alphabet Inc.[edit]

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

This article doesn't seem to meet the requirements for notability. These assets could easily but put in the infobox of Alphabet Inc., which is done very nicely in The Walt Disney Company through a framestyle collapsible list. If Alphabet Inc. had dozens of subsidiaries I could understand, but they don't even have ten. And with the exception of the table, most of the content on the page is also just copy and pasted from the main article. HalloweenNight (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alphabet Inc.. The table would fit well there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested as this seems best. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above two editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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