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) 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not seem to be an important person (vanity article?). References seem very weak but I'm bringing it here because I can't read Romanian. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - could not find anything that establishes his notability. Only found a few articles about another Ionuț Silaghi, who is a high school student. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Random biographical ephemera cannot mask the fact that the subject blatantly fails WP:BIO. - 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biruitorul (talk • contribs) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and look for sources - 17:40, 3 November 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autenticlllll5 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly does not meet notability criteria per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 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 keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. Of note is that a great deal of promotional content was removed from the article after this was nominated for deletion (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archivo Diseño y Arquitectura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Moved from Draft space, reads like a promotional piece for the company, fails WP:NOTPROMOTION JMHamo (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The issues concerning this entry have been addressed through proper edits and thus I recommend to KEEP the entry. Mdiaztuf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Archivo Diseño y Arquitectura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a company, but a cultural non-profit. The purpose of the entry is informational, not promotional. Mdiaztuf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)— Mdiaztuf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. By searching online, I've found two reliable sources that significantly cover this location. With those it should meet the notability guideline. I'll add those sources in later. Appable (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and draft and userfy if needed until better improvement can be made. Pinging Vrac (como estamos?) SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the metropolismag source that's cited is good, plus a milenio article, other stuff in English (which in and of itself is an indication of notability; it's not just a locally-known entity). Pues estamos vivos, ya es mucho... Vrac (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Issues have been addressed and the entry has valuable information on a notable cultural institution.Marioballe (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)— Marioballe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Enough and reliable sources, passes notability guideline. Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)User has been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:42, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Małgorzata Tracz is co-leader on non-parliamentarian party, which contains about 500 members. She is not notable politician (as for today) to have an article in Wikipedia. Her biography was also in the Polish Wikipedia, where was just deleted. Kmicic (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Discussion page was created without afd2 template or listing in a daily log. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 01:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or simply redirect to party's article as I'm not familiar nor speaker of Polish politics but if this is not independently notable yet, moving to the group's article should suffice as well. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete (but postpone decision until late October's elections). I see one regional source of some reliability ([1]), but as a politician, she and her party are pretty much a non-entity, and the sources are lacking. However, I'd suggest userfying rather than deleting, sooner or later she may be elected to the national parliament, and thus become notable. In fact, the elections are this weekend, so postponing the decision on this for a week or two may solve our problems (if she is elected, this should be kept immediately). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userify Seems like an article that popped up for political reasons. I can't read the sources, but seeing as other editors have said they are weak, I would agree that this article should be deleted. I also believe that the article should be deleted as soon as consensus is found. Octobers Polish elections should have no bearing on the validity of an article even if there is a chance for the party to be elected. If it needs to be recovered in the future due to that party being nominated, so be it. Jcmcc (Talk) 15:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Poland's Green Party was part of a larger United Left coalition for the election just concluded. This alliance won no seats. --Finngall ^talk 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With a recommendation to consider following Czar's advice and using the sources found here to add a mention of UOX to Ultima Online and then redirect this title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable video game software with no coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CZAR: I don't know if it counts as significant coverage, but here are some secondary sources that have mentioned UOX:

• Gamespot article from December 1st, 1997 - http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ultima-goes-offline/1100-2468234/
• PC World (Polish edition) mentioned UOX in an article in April 1998 - http://www.pcworld.pl/artykuly/297588/Gry.newsy.html
• Computer Gaming World magazine (December 2003 printed issue, page 99 - freely downloadable in PDF format at http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=2003&pub=2&id=233 or http://pdf.textfiles.com/zines/CGW/), mentions UOX in a section called "The Gray Area - Fun With Emulators" where the topic of server emulation is covered briefly.
• makeuseof.com had an article about online server emulation/private servers on October 8th, 2014, where UOX was mentioned - http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/is-it-illegal-to-play-world-of-warcraft-on-a-private-server/

Xoduz (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is brief, but could warrant a mention in the main Ultima Online article's mods section. PC World and CGW both have one-sentence descriptions of UOX that can be used as backup, though I imagine the first source covers it. Not sure whether Makeuseof is a reliable source. Anyway, thanks for pulling these. I'd support a redirect to another page that mentions UOX if there's a good place to put it based on these sources. czar 21:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - poorly sourced game advertisement. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. the references do not seem sufficiently substantial. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 03:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable event Flat Out (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Its a junior event, not a pro event. Flat Out (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm unfamiliar with this area of Wikipedia, but looking at the related categories in handball and other sports, this would appear to be in keeping with the thresholds for notability and relevance (unless the South American version of this is somehow more inherently notable). And while Wikipedia:Other stuff exists isn't quite a proper argument, consistency in an encyclopedia does matter and I would presume that someone inquiring into international handball might wonder why one continent's event is missing from a list of others. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it would seem that the article at Pan American Men's Junior Handball Championship suffers from the same problems as this one, lack of sources and apparent lack of coverage. Almost all the coverage, and the only substantive coverage, seems to be from related sites, such as the International Handball Federation. --Bejnar (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well organzied article and not any different than other youth/junior handball tournament, sources should be added though. Kante4 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They all seems to suffer from the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Also note WP:OTHERTHINGS. --Bejnar (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom and Bejnar, who present the only policy/guideline substantiated arguments. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - More refs from not-related sources are now added to the article. Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG 73.138.114.150 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How and based on what exactly ? It looks like this IP only enjoys to vote for delete. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:44, 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. I have to largely discount the "keep" opinions arguing for the inherent notability of ambassadors, because that is a field well covered by our notability guidelines, which do not provide for such a presumption of notability.  Sandstein  07:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Bolduc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. all I could find for coverage is merely confirming he held posts. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of significant coverage. I doubt that this is the same Canadian Jean-Pierre Bolduc who was a director of an international humanitarian assistance program, and author of "Natural Disasters in the Third World: The Myths and the Role of the Media" (1987). He also has passing mention here and there. But even if he is, together they do not have significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a primary source biography of him, in a PDF backgrounder for an African visit by Michaëlle Jean, which stated that his background was in humanitarian assistance and development — so there's at least a stronger possibility than you seem inclined to believe, obviously pending further research, that it is the same person. CIDA is actually a division of DFAIT, so that's a completely plausible career path. He was also, for what it's worth, Canada's ambassador to Senegal at the time of Jean's tour, which means that the article isn't getting updated very often. That said, a person doesn't get over a Wikipedia inclusion bar on primary sources alone, so neither of those facts guarantee him a keep just because of the PDF — but it's a definite "more research needed" case. I'll fire up the ProQuest right now, and report my findings as soon as I can. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This DFAIT press release attributes Bolduc with a CIDA background, including its International Humanitarian Assistance Division, which means it is the same person. ProQuest came up mostly dry, for the record; I found one source from 1986 for "Jean-Pierre Bolduc, director of the Canadian International Development Agency's international humanitarian assistance branch", but nothing else at all. But sourcing for his ambassadorial postings does exist in French language sources from African media on a Google search. (Wikipedia only requires our content to be in English — the sources can be in any language that any Wikipedian has the ability to translate if asked.) So when you couple the sources that exist for "Jean-Pierre Bolduc Congo" with the ones that exist for "Jean-Pierre Bolduc Senegal" (which likely weren't previously considered, due to this article's failure to include the Senegal posting at all), I believe there is enough to satisfy GNG. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree about the substantialness of the coverage, but you have just made this a "no consensus" result, hence kept. --Bejnar (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Veteran ambassador to a number of countries. Significant enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

he's only been resident ambassador to 3 countries. Hardly remarkable. And a 10 year long career is not really veteran. There are countless ambassadors with 20+ year careers. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - diplomats are in a position of prestige, somewhat equivalent to high-level postings, and receive frequent media coverage as such, especially in the country they are sent to. [2], [3], [4] —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the first 2 sources he's actually not the subject of the coverage, he is merely stating the Canadian government position. These sources do not add to his notability. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - diplomats and ambassadors are not inherently notable. As politicians, they usually fail WP:NPOL, since they are appointed, not elected. Usually if a diplomat/ambassador achieves notability it is due to other factors in their life, not the simple fact that they were appointed to a foreign duty post. Currently, searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show this individual passes WP:GNG. A few passing mentions in News, zero in Newspapers (all the hits there are for other people with this same name); in books, there is one with an article by him, but that doesn't go to notability, all the rest are trivial mentions; same on Scholar, and a single trivial hit on Highbeam. Zip on JSTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not politicians, so WP:NPOL doesn't apply at all! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ambassadors are the highest level of their profession, and therefore ought to be considered as notable--just a are professional athletes. Certainly do not delete without a proper search in Francophone sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are the highest level of their profession, and therefore ought to be considered as notable absolutely not true, there is no inherent notability of ambassadors as proven by well established consensus. secondly, my search for sources included francophone sources. the person in question is Canadian which would also appear in English sources. have you actually searched for sources WP:MUSTBESOURCES? LibStar (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are considered notable on Wikipedia if they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. They're not given an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, if the sourcing for them is purely primary or entirely non-existent. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 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. KTC (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etihad Player Of The Month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. WP:FANCRUFT and does not avoid WP:Recentism JMHamo (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Is an official trophy given out by the club. Thursby16 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable award. Can't find a single independent source about it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable. True award from the Club. [5] TheFootieGuy (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Striking !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - TheFootieGuy was created on 29 October 2015 at 21:10... obviously a sock. JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Account was blocked for violating WP:SOCK by an admin at 21:28, 29 October 2015, so this "keep" !vote should be discounted. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Man City for this award means that you have verified its existence, but you have not proved that it is a notable award. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable award, no independent sources. WP:GNG clearly failed. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable fancruft. GiantSnowman 09:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obvious cruft. A non-notable internal fan-based award that has garnered no significant reliable coverage outside of primary sources to even begin to satisfy GNG. The keep arguments above amount to nothing more than WP:ITEXISTS. Fenix down (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even though it includes their best ever player. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better than Super Bob? Surely you jest ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha!! And just look at the Belgians!! EddieWaring123 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete per WP:FANCRUFT as already noted. Jim Carter 07:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Thursby16 (talk). I think it is an important trophy to me, so it can given out by the club, but it is a Non-notable award, no independent sources. --Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is non-notable? That makes literally no sense at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 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. KTC (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:58, 29 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£} 21:01, 29 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£} 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per GNG and TOOSOON. Also delete Live That Song, his debut EP, if it hasn't charted. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No better improvement obviously here. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. In any case delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied for improvement on request. The later "Keep" opinions are ... very questionable, and are discounted.  Sandstein  07:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BLP that fails WP:BASIC, being very hard to find any reliable secondary sources in a search. NottNott talk|contrib 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace in light of BOZ's comment below. NottNott talk|contrib 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable person, definitely failing WP:BASIC. samtar ^{t} 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable (edit: or move to draft and redirect per others). Unfortunately I am not finding reliable sources. It's all social media, self-published, various gamer stuff. Also the main source used in the article is Designers and Dragons a book published by Mongoose Publishing which is the same company that publishes Traveller, a game which Whitman helped design - thus conflicted for establishing notability. The rest of the sources are primary. -- GreenC 02:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draftify so that it can be worked on. I have to disagree with Green Cardamom's assessment of Designers & Dragons as a valid source for this article. While it is true that Mongoose was one of several companies that has published Traveller (along with GDW, Impermium, Steve Jackson Games, QLI/RPGRealms Publishing, and Far Future Enterprises), they were not the game's publisher any longer by the time Designers & Dragons was published in 2011 (Far Future's version was being developed by then). The game had a few editions (and a decade or so) between "Marc Miller's Traveller" on which Whitman had his only involvement in Traveller, and the publication of the Mongoose version of Traveller. In writing a book for Mongoose, the author Shannon Appelcline may have focused on Traveller history in more detail for the company who was recently the game's publisher, but even if Mongoose had something to benefit from such a promotion of the game, I can argue that the book was not promoting Whitman at all. In fact, when I wrote this article, I toned down some of Appelcline's criticism of Whitman, and even one portion such as this had been removed from the article. So the link between Whitman and Mongoose is very, very tenuous and require a lot of indirect relationships and leaps of logic to be made. Designers & Dragons was republished and expanded by Evil Hat Publications last year - a company with no connection to Traveller at all so far as I know - and included all the information from the Mongoose edition, including all the criticism of some of his activities. In fact, it says a little more about Whitman which I have not yet added to the article. I switched the citations in the article to the Evil Hat Games edition of Designers & Dragons, if that helps. In my opinion, it is a solid source. The challenge here is that we need more. I am confident that they exist, in gaming magazines or something written by experts in the field, because he has been controversial, but the challenge is that unless you actually own a copy of such publications it may be very difficult to find that out from just internet searches. Which can be very frustrating - it is easy to have a subject for which plenty of legitimate sources do exist, but which are out of your reach at the moment. BOZ (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: I'd be in favour of moving it to draftspace as per your suggestion as there's clearly a lot of information most non-specialist editors are missing out on. The article will need a huge makeover, but this is probably the best for most editors concerned about the article in its present state. NottNott talk|contrib 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: I think the article needs to be updated and kept if for no other reason that Ken Whitman has been noted recently of bilking many people out of money via at least 6 fraudulent Kickstarter campaigns. Ken Whitman has been noted in the RPG industry, and not necessarily positively, as a minor contributor here or there. Without resources like Wikipedia, he would be allowed to control far too much of the information about his past. There are sources other than Designers & Dragons and Mr. Whitman, such as this siteCStogdill (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Imperium Games -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC) meh, this is not a great option either, as Imperium Games suffers from a similar lack of evidence of notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draftspace and redirect the base page name to Imperium Games pending improvement of the article. bd2412 T 00:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep or Draftify -- User GalakStarscraperArticle should stand. Ken Whitman in the gaming world has left a long black mark that has actually put at least 3 other businesses out of business. He has done this by too many people being willing to cover up or remove those trying to honestly post about him. Bernie Madoff gets a page for destroying people's fortunes ... Ken Whitman deserves one as well as he has done the same to thousands of people just with different methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalakStarscraper (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • that is not a valid rationale at all -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --- Since it seems that Mr. Whitman [redacted link to blog making defamatious claims about a living person] may become the second Kickstarter creator to be sued by a state (Kentucky) Attorney General] for lack of results, I think he is certainly "notable." At the very least, I think consideration of notability may be premature. If nothing comes of it, then we can consider the matter at a later date. --Roland 18:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvolz (talk • contribs)

we do not keep articles based upon some random bloggers belief that something might happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Single source and frankly I am dubious of his involvement in Imperium (which would be his most notable achievement given its involvement with Traveller) given that I cant find anywhere else that states he co-founded it. Our own article on Imperium (while not useful as a source) does not mention him at all. Indicating the sources for Imperium have little to say about him. Not adverse to Draftifying it as per Rvolz above though, the kickstarter lawsuits are only going to increase... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --- There are far too many people who need to know what is going on with this individual, since he has allegedly taken so much money from them and given nothing in return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.51.41 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 17:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Self-published e-book. No indication that the subject satisfies WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 19:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction as a print version does exist. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 22:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book is not self published. This book is published through an international publisher Packt. Its in Paperback format not only in ebook. Please consider not deleting this page as it matches in structure similar pages from other tech books on wikipedia and provides an equal value. Furthermore based on wikipedias rules:

Failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in this guideline (or any other notability guideline) is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Additionally the article states: Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcallister80 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcallister80: Our article on Packt describes it as a "print-on-demand publishing company". Print on demand can be considered a form of self-publishing. The actual deletion argument, however, relates to notability as indicated by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources – something that neither this article, nor anything that I have seen elsewhere, demonstrates. A Google search for "Mastering Jenkins" + the author's name turns up only 16 hits, and I have yet to find any detailed discussion of the book anywhere online.

You correctly point out that the notability guideline for books contains a few caveats regarding academic and technical works, but what of the specialised indicators for notability suggested in the second half of that paragraph? Has anyone cited this book? Is it considered influential?

Am I correct in assuming, based on your username, that you are the author of this book? SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 22:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperMarioMan: The provisions outlined within the Wikipedia guidelines provide special provisions for technical and academic works. These works do not need to necessarily meet the notability guidelines indicated for traditional literature. The important section of these guidelines is indicated below:

"For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail." The key word above is 'notice' not necessarily the same as 'notable'. If we are to begin limiting academic and scientific literature from wikipedias database the essence and original intent of the wikipedia concept "The sum of all human knowledge" would be null and void. This would make wikipedia no better than a common user-forum. In addition to this argument there are hundreds of technical books listed within Wikipedia that match the same basic concept as this one. Do we begin wholesale deleting those pages as well? Where is the line drawn? What is the specific criteria…. ? How can a book gain notoriety without being noticed first? This argument seems much like the chicken and the egg.

EOM.

• You're quoting WP:TEXTBOOKS and the general basis of that is to look at who has published the book, how widely used the book is, how many printings it's been through, and so on. The guideline there basically argues that a textbook will be notable if it has been through at least 5-6 printings, is widely used at colleges throughout at least one country (if not multiple countries), and is published by a well-known and well-respected academic publisher. Just being an academic work in and of itself does not mean that something will pass guidelines and the unsaid thing about this guideline is that an academic text that would pass this guideline would be very likely to have some sort of footprint in reliable sources, even if it's just that the book is widely cited as a reliable source in footnotes. It's extremely unlikely that a book would pass these guidelines without some sort of coverage in reliable sources independent of the book, author(s), or publisher.

As far as gaining notice, the problem is that while it's difficult for independent and/or self-published books to gain coverage, they must still have received coverage in some sort of reliable source, enough to pass guidelines. Frustrating? Yes. I'll openly say that I've been frustrated with Wikipedia's guidelines in the past, but these guidelines have evolved over the years because there has been a lot of abuse of the system. Because of this, notability must be established prior to the article being written. This is unlikely to change any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This very, very newly published book (October 27, 2015) doesn't seem to have gained any sort of coverage in independent and reliable sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable, like newspaper articles, academic journal reviews, or the like. For that matter, I also cannot see where the book is widely used in classrooms at this point in time. Same goes for citations in academic works, although that's an obvious given. This might change over time, given that this book released about a week ago, but we have to judge notability in the here and now. Just existing as a book is not enough, regardless of whether or not it's a mainstream, academic, or technical work, and all articles must assert notability in some form or fashion. As far as self-publishing or publishing on demand goes, that isn't a reason for deletion and I don't think that the nom meant it like that, but it is usually a sign that sourcing will be difficult to find, if it exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument on this matter is that there is no reasonable way to have notoriety without getting noticed first. This is a chicken and the egg type conundrum. If the position of the wikipedia community is that books should not be included (even though pertaining to an academic subject) based on a lack of not being heard of we are in the end simply stifling innovation and forward thinking thought. This rule should also then apply to the hundreds of other books which have wikipedia pages. To the point of the book being self published. The book was not actually self published. PoD (print on demand) simply means that when a buyer purchases it it is printed fresh each time instead of in large runs. In addition the book is actually a part of the 'Mastering' series which is well known within Packt Publishing. The book itself was peer-reviewed, had a technical editor, and had copywrighters who all follow the same publishing process as say books from Orielly. I still however fail to see how say this particular argument of notoriety applies to academic books. The wikipedias guidelines are just that 'guidelines'. They even admit that this would be too restrictive for academic publications. Why can't common sense prevail here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.108.42 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yet again (I was the admin who deleted this as spam first time around and have seen nothing to change my mind). Wikipedia isn't an advertising platform, and it's not our job to help you "get noticed". As a tertiary source, we only reproduce material which has already been published by reliable sources; if no sources on a topic exist, then we don't cover that topic. This is one of our most fundamental core principles, and unfortunately you're not going to get that changed; if you can't point to reviews that show that other people consider it important, then we can't consider it important regardless of whether we want to. ‑ iridescent 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For a topic to have an article on Wikipedia it must pass WP:GNG or in this case, Wikipedia:Notability (books). There is no evidence presented that the subject of this article passes either of these. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, re "This rule should also then apply to the hundreds of other books which have wikipedia pages." Sorry but the WP:WHATABOUTX is irrelevant to afds. oh, also Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing in search engines shows that it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. A professional wrestler with who only debuted earlier this year. Works for a mid-level Japanese promotion with no accomplishments to his name. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing to indicate notability as per nom. NottNott talk|contrib 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 21:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth third-party coverage to establish basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 09:24, 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) 03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article is completely lacking independent, reliable sources concerning personal details of the subject or claims concerning her career, and the few sources which are cited are all primary (personal/organizational Web sites), Youtube and/or unreliable. The article makes unsourced or poorly sourced claims concerning interactions with other personalities, including an unspecified "relationship" with Eddie Murphy, that may constitute violations of WP:BLP. Her primary claims to fame seem to be a) having "no relatives" (meaning living relatives?), b) surviving a rare form of cancer, and c) having been featured in "a series of sexy pictures". None of these are unique or make the subject notable in absence of citations that show her to be so. (Nominated for PROD, but an IP who has recently edited the article removed the nomination.) General Ization ^Talk 18:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article was created (Looks like it was created back in 2010 by a single use account but there is no way to link it to the PR account.) by an account abusing multiple accounts and based on the master name one which is trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. Fails WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/45managementinc. Jbh^Talk 19:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: another candidate for G11: " She has one of the most beautiful faces and bodies..." etc... Just speedy deleted out of eswiki. Vrac (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:N. Whole article is based on a single source. Musa Talk  22:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  02:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  02:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  02:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better sourcing can be found as I simply see nothing to suggest obvious keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have improved article for clarity and referencing and will continue to do that; it looks to have been written originally on the Turkish-language Wikipedia and is not well-sourced there either. Article is useful in showing context of mandolin use in Middle East, which is currently under-reported in Mandolin article.Jacqke (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the original nomination to delete indicated that the article was based on one source. It now has more than 20 sources, and at least one is a news source. Searches for the artist, along with specific songs or albums or groups she played with turn up a lot of links, showing that she does have online notability.Jacqke (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The many citations added to this article appear to be links to places where the subject is named as having performed on an album. Sources need to discuss the subject of the article in depth, not merely mention the subject's name in passing. Article would need multiple references which discuss the subject in some kind of depth to be retained. KDS4444^Talk 04:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and particularly KDS4444's assessment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced article about a piece of software, I can't find any reliable sources that cover it. A similar article (sourced only to the company's own website) was prodded a couple of weeks ago and has now been recreated. Creator appears to have a WP:COI. McGeddon (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't seem to have met WP:BCAST. The claim of large audience (heard nationally) is not verified, has no established history and is not an unique program. Guess this should be deleted. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I helped created the Sport Your Argument Page, so I would vote to Keep it. The show's replay podcast averages over 1000 downloads, as you can see on their homepage. The usual rule of thumb is 10x more live listeners than archived listeners. While the show is the most listened to on an all sports podcast channel of Blog Talk Radio, it's also the main weekly show of a TuneIn Radio station. While I would have to reach out to the show for verification, on October 7th the show released their Top 5 metropolitan areas of listeners which was (according to them): Miami, Seattle, San Jose, Washington DC and Philadelphia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSports1982 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I would Keep this page as well, they posted their audience stats a few months ago on the website blog, showing the reach of the audience. I heard of the show on my TuneIn Radio Station even though I live in Seattle, Washington. Sprts4566 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Sprts4566[reply]

• Note. WikiSports1982 (talk · contribs · count) and Sprts4566 (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiSports1982.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JAaron95 this is M. Potter one of the hosts and creators of Sport Your Argument. I can confirm that our show has over 1,346 downloads off our website this week, excluding the listens when our show airs on Blog Talk Radio and TuneIn Radio. We can also confirm the cities above and if you would like any additional information please feel free to reach out to us using the contact information found on our website. SYA was very pleased to be a part of Wikipedia and hope to continue being included on this website. A special thank you to WikiSports1982 for creating the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYAsportstalk (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — SYAsportstalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Struck content from confirmed socks above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiSports1982/Archive.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 7 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. Without. Discussion is closed without prejudice to a redirect to the article on the show. joe decker^talk 17:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Bulmer-Cooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable. The awards are minor without any evidence that they are regarded as important or significant, even within the profession . The references are entirely press releases or the equivalent.

By precedence here, appearing on the Apprentice is not notability. If one were to accept the premise of the show, it's proof of just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  06:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  06:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I suppose if there's nothing to suggest moving elsewhere and better improvement as a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a list of other people who have appeared on the show, perhaps? (If there is one) Montanabw^(talk) 05:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 6 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 15:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A comedy night in a local club is not notable, and any publicty it gets is lust that-- just PR. Apparently it has bigger plans for the future. So do many acts--when it accomplishes them, they there perhaps can be an article. Not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Londonist.com mentions a Chortle Award for the venue (Best small club, London), but only one of the sources (Beyond The Joke - a blog by Bruce Dessau) has the club as the main subject of its coverage, apart from that it seems to descriptions provided by Ferns and not independently of the subject or brief mentions but put together may be just enough for an article if the subject is significant enough. An alternative to deletion would be to redirect to the Barry Ferns article. Peter James (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this and this and there are simply no signs of better improvement. Can you believe this has existed since October 2005 with this being the start? Pinging Fylbecatulous, The Blade of the Northern Lights and Fram and also author Spasage. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article alone should be enough to show clear notability. One of the major figures in Lollywood for decades. Most sources are probably not in the Latin script, so finding them is harder (for most of us at least), but what is there shows that he is clearly notable. Fram (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have no real opinion on notability. My BLP tag was changed to another within about three weeks by another editor. Please ping that editor. It is true all external links are to IMDb, and there are no inline citations. So the maintenance tag is correct. Please someone add some sources, Latin based language or not. Actually, I see articles such as this everyday and just cringe at the state of our BLPs and article content in general. We are not winning the battle on quality here...thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 11:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What is necessary is for people who can find and read the available sources to work on this, but from the career specified, notability is very likely. IMdB doesn't prove notability ,but it does provide verification of the films. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable biography. Just need few references. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:41, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This would seem notable and acceptable but I'm not entirely sure and the best I found was this and this. I'm not sure if Righteousskills can comment but I'll notify him anyway. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does look significantly better than it did back in 2012. My main concern was the lack of citations, which are now present. Righteousskills (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I find poetry to be very difficult because it doesn't get reviewed much so it's hard to have RS. In this case, there is one award (PEN), but I don't think that's enough. The other award was given by her publisher, so that isn't independent. That's all we have to go on, and I didn't find anything else of note. LaMona (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep LaMona is correct, contemporary poets are difficult because poetry has so largely faded to a minor or even fringe art form in the Anglosphere. However, writing it has earned this poet university teaching jobs. She has published with well-regarded houses. There are 3 prizes on the page (including the one by the publisher in which publication probably was the competitive prize awarded). And she does get some press, io9 here: [6], Boston Review here: [7], WFDD here: [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This does seem well sourced for a poet of today. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:13, 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. slakr^\ talk / 03:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As an Istanbul scholar, he would seem notable but I'm not entirely sure of that and the best I found was this, this, this, this (this one seems to be simply mirrors) and this so I hope this can get familiar attention. Notifying the only users albeit not currently active Kavas and RookTaker. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete when I last looked into this individual I struggled to find much that indicated notability. RookTaker (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no way of evaluating his notability on way or another. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Mufti of Istanbul is the leading Islamic scholar in that city. We have multiple sources that show he held that title. We may well need help from people fluent in Turkish to find better sources, but it is clear that Bayindir is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that you are mistaken regarding the definition of a Mufti. More than one Mufti can exist in a location (as opposed to a Grand Mufti) . Examples in the United Kingdom include Mufti Muhammad Ibn Adam al-Kawthari, Mufti Zubair Butt, Mufti Mohammed Sajaad, Mufti Barkatullah etc... Whilst these individuals are all Mufti's this doesn't necessarily imply that they are notable (in fact none of them seem to exist on Wikipedia). All it proves is that they have the qualifications to issue Islamic legal opinions. The links in the Bayandir article state that "Professor Abdul Aziz Bayandir(ph) is a former mufti of Istanbul". This sounds to me as though he is one of many former Muftis. I don't believe that this in itself proves notability (whereas the current Grand Mufti of Istanbul is Rahmi Yaran who probably should be on Wikipedia). RookTaker (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reaction to the comment above by RookTaker: Turkey itself no longer uses the title of Grand Mufti; Rahmi Yaran is simply the Mufti of Istanbul (İstanbul Müftüsü). Apparently, this is of insufficient importance to earn him an article in the Turkish Wikipedia. His predecessor, Mustafa Çağrıcı, also has no article in Turkish. (In the English Wikipedia Çağrıcı is said to be "currently mufti of Istanbul", although his appointment ended on 28 October 2011, see Milliyet article "Reformcu İstanbul Müftüsü alındı".) As far as I can see, Abdülaziz Bayındır was assistant at the Istanbul Mufti office for one year, a position that by itself would most definitely not confer notability and justify an article. His article on the Turkish Wikipedia also provides no other evidence of notability in the sense we require here.  --Lambiam 00:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. clearly not sufficient from the references, and I think the interpretation of Mufti above makes sense. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and above editors, nothing in the search engines shows they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seemingly non-notable actor with no further signs of improvement and the best results here, here and here and this simply hasn't improved since starting in September 2008. Notifying author Last Contrarian. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Has acted in some movies and television shows. However, there's nothing significant about his roles and I am unable to find any notable facts about the subject. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Yash! 07:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Easily an A7 with its current state but the best my searches found was this, this, this, this and this suggesting there's not much for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were this and this which is hardly much to imagine better improvement. Pinging the only still active user Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not seeing much online on web pages or news. Perhaps there is a court case. But there seems to be no independent writings. so fails GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 15 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. joe decker^talk 17:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best search links I found were this, this and this. This has not changed much since starting in April 2013 so comments about this would be helpful. Pinging DGG (I don't suppose you could comment at some of the AfDs I've listed at your talk page?) and Rich Farmbrough and I would've also included User:Blanchardb but they are not noticeably active. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. very minor notability at best, and considerable promotionalism . One book by Wiley *for which he was one of 3 authors) , an established publisher--other claimed books are totally insignificant. The sort of media experiences he made are wholly trivial. The section on quotes is pure promotionalism way out of proportion with the subject's importance. SwisterTwister, I'm still trying to clear up the backlog from Washington. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Pearson are an established general publisher, one of the largest. FranklinCovey are a niche management/leadership publisher, whose flagship product is "7 Habits". Nonetheless we need significant RS about him, preferably, or at a pinch his books. (If his books do not meet GNG individually, but do collectively that would satisfy me.) This might lead to some of his other activities, though it probably does not count as independent itself. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

Regardless of publisher, the key thing is that none of the books has over 50 library holdings. in Worldcat,and in the field of popular self-help business books, that is about as insignificant as you can get. And the only one with more than 20 holdings is the one by Wiley. That's not a formal criterion, but when its as clear as this it's a very useful guide. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, so far failure to meet GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.news-journal.com/news/2014/may/14/alan-fox-band-plans-first-show-in-longview-in-two-/ http://www.news-journal.com/news/2010/oct/07/rebirth-of-a-rock-band/ http://www.news-journal.com/news/2010/may/06/alan-fox-band-lives-on-after-gig-closes/ http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/jun/05/headliner-t-bone-walker-festival-a-fitting-tribute/ http://eguidemagazine.com/the-alan-fox-band/ http://www.jambase.com/artists/77389/Alan-Fox-Band http://www.palestineherald.com/alan-fox-band/image_8231ab6e-c5ec-555f-9124-1bf5b0b2744a.html http://www.statefairoflouisiana.com/events/2014/alan-fox-band--oct-23 https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/alan-fox-band/id287124694 http://www.guidelive.com/things-to-do/228027/alan-fox-band-mambos-tapas-cantina-fort-worth http://www.amazon.com/Never-Learn-Alan-Fox-Band/dp/B00GHJ0VH0 http://www.easttexasreview.com/tag/the-alan-fox-band/ http://www.prekindle.com/promo/id/22815447477471341 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Riverboat-Man-Alan-Fox-Band/dp/B00MMT1N6M http://www.frequency.com/video/waxahachie-whirlwind-alan-fox-band/241922458?cid=5-1805 http://www.outhousetickets.com/Artist/Alan_Fox_Band/ http://article.wn.com/view/2013/11/28/Alan_Fox_Band_breaks_out/ http://garlandisd.tix.com/Event.aspx?EventCode=627600 http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Alan_Fox_Band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockon520 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I'm from here and can't say I'm familiar with them and I'm not seeing much better to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - despite the morass added above, looking through them they don't rise the article to meeting the notability criteria. Neither did searches on the engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability. - MrX 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Concur with Dialectric, no primary sources, no indication of why this software is notable. LordPsychon (Com lines open) 21:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I simply see nothing better and it's too soon at best. Pinging interested users Czar and Yann. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to add. Yann (talk) 19:13, 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. KTC (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Tzu-yung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Candidate for a new Taiwanese party in the upcoming January 2016 elections. Standard media coverage of her candidacy announcements do not establish notability. This article is part of a newly expanded series of articles about the relatively small New Power Party. GermanJoe (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  16:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  16:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Perhaps userfy, and if they win the election, we can re-look at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As politicians/political-related page, we can keep her article if she wins the upcoming legislative election, thus she becomes the member of Legislative Yuan, or if she becomes the chairman of her party. And of course we can keep if she becomes any ministers/deputy ministers/chairperson/director-general of any ROC gov related agencies. But as a normal party member without any significant contribution to Taiwan, it is not strong enough to keep her as a Wikipedia article. Chongkian (talk) 16:13, 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. KTC (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article about a new company which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Speedy A7 and G11 was contested by USER:Ritchie333 on basis of WP:INHERITED from Bill Warren. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in any case as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 17:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

At first sight this appears sufficiently referenced to verify notability. Dig deeper and you see that the references are not robust, many without significant coverage, some not actually about the org, and others not RS. Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for nowat best until a better article can be made. Pinging tagger Dennis Brown. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I did patrol and tag this one, saw that the refs really didn't pass SIGCOV, and at least then some didn't pass anything. Looking now, it looks like a paid editing article with no genuine refs, just links to mentions. They've had plenty of time to fix, I can assume this is as good as it will ever get, so delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:51, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andria D'Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Though I think the subject may be on the cusp of notability, I think this article is premature. No clear indication that the subject fully meets WP:NACTOR yet, with significant roles in multiple notable films. There may have been a better argument for this had she played the main lead in Faisal Saif's For Adults Only, but that project, (which may in fact have been a publicity stunt for Saif anyway) was shelved.[9] (and the article has since been prodded, so check it out while supplies last). There may be an argument for keeping based on this ref which indicates she has a lead role in another movie. She also apparently has a lead role in Kamasutra 3D, but that hasn't been released yet.

There's no indication the subject meets WP:GNG either. Most of the refs I've found are passing mentions.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

I have seen a few interviews, but those seem more like typical publicity pieces, and interviews are typically considered primary sources, so I don't think they qualify as "independent" coverage.[17][18]

I'd recommend a merge if I could think of an intuitive place to merge this content. Alternatively, we could userfy the content until notable films are released. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not yet notable. The subject (or somebody claiming to be her) has done her best to puff it up, but the notability simply isn't there yet, and may never be. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject passess WP:NACTOR, multiple mainstream movies as lead actress.--Human3015^TALK  22:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Human3015. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject doesn't meets WP:NACTOR. The Wikipedia page of Casanova doesn't mention her in the Cast section. She had a minor role in the production. She made a guest appearance in Nirel, another minor role in Looti. Kamasutra 3D hasn't released yet and the page For Adults Only would most likely be merged to the director's article. Her IMDb page mentions 1 TV appearance. I total, this doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines for actors. No encyclopaedic value at the present moment.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: - this one passes WP:NACTOR, per lead actress in films.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• She has played significant role in just 1 film, rest are passing mentions and the film For Adults Only has been shelved.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR: Does not have significant roles in notable projects. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - marginally notable. Great photo though. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable software. Article appears to have been created by the creator. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Linux Magazine's article about Slap. Fairly popular software, thousands of downloads a month. --Dbkaplun (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A single article on a site that will write about pretty much anything linux related doesn't really establish any notability. --  Kethrus |talk to me  13:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - just because a primary source mentions something does not make it automatically notable (that'd be like listing your favorite professor from college whom everybody loves but no one outside of the college knows at all...the college may be notable but the professor, not so much). --LordPsychon (Com lines open) Neither black nor white but gray shall rule the day 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computer-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see nothing better. Pinging Czar who is interested with this. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up anything to indicate it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't see a lot of coverage apart from videos of his preaching, social media and reports of his death, but there may be a lot more in non-English sources. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  10:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  10:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability available, and I wouldl have considered speedy not afd. The mere possibility of more sources existing is not really something we can accept as a reason to keep. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^talk 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Tit' Nassels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable as the French Wiki is basically the same and the best my searches found was this, this and this and this has basically stayed the same since January 2007. Pinging Vrac (espero que todo esta bien contigo ) SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: found some concert announcements but not much depth to the coverage. Vrac (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging interested subject users Michig and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search shows nothing. The French version of the article offers only one source that could be considered reliable. Not enough for GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found some French coverage ([19], [20], [21], [22]) but not enough top convince me that the subject is notable enough. As the article doesn't really give an indication of why the group are notable I would go for delete unless something more convincing is turned up. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 6 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. Discounting the opinion by Lonjing because they aren't making an Argument.  Sandstein  07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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