< 2 October	4 October >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (express) 09:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma Electrochemistry[edit]

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

The page creator has the same name as the author of the book used as reference. The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for multiple reasons. For one thing, there's nothing wrong with you writing a Wikipedia article that relies primarily or entirely on information that you've written and had published in reliable sources, as long as you're not promoting yourself. In this case, it's completely acceptable; the author's not promoting himself at all, and it's from an article published in a solid academic journal (not a book), which is essentially always considered a reliable source. That's a reason to reject the nominator's statement, but not a reason to keep. The reason for keeping is that this subject is getting significant coverage. See the book chapter "Plasma Electrochemistry: A Novel Chemical Process for the Synthesis and Assembly of Nanomaterials". See DOI 10.1039/C2CP43431H and DOI 10.1039/C1CP20501C, both articles published in the journal Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. Those are just in the first page of Google results. This seems to be a new field in chemistry that's getting good coverage in scholarly publications, something that we should definitely cover. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar and other sources assure me this is a notable topic. Since the topic is encyclopedic and can have verifiable and reputable sources, it's not proper to delete it. That said, a one-sentence article about of a topic of this nature isn't reasonable. Others knowledgeable of the field should mark the page for improvement and additional information such that a reader of Wikipedia might get basic understand of what is being described.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The only "keep" argument is from the article's creator and does not provide evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asutosh Kashyap[edit]

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

The sources are unreliable and unknown websites. There is only one National geographic reference in internet, which is like a personal account that can opened by any photographer like a Flickr account. National Geographic websites allows photographers to have their personal account to upload their picture. Though i am impressed by his photography skills, it doesn't prove notability. The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Indeed, his photography skills are admirable. But I found nothing written about him or his work in reliable secondary sources. ABF99 (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Flickr type profile in NatGeo mentions he is from Assam and the page creator is also from Assam.--The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Amazing Spiderman. I declined the speedy deletion of Asutosh Kashyap, a page which you tagged for speedy deletion. I agree The sources are unreliable and unknown websites, but his photography skills are impressive, it prove notability because most of his work has been featured on tv shows, magazines, institute etc but not on some websites. He is a well known photographer in our country. Moreover his first book Snakes - The Uncrowned King of the Jungle, wasn't published online but he's one of the youngest to write an encyclopedia at age 15 and was appreciated by many notable person who have published significant works, and his second book will be published online. I have been on wikipedia for 1 year, 9 months and 13 days and have been contributing and featuring many articles. This is the first time, I have been facing such issue. I came across some articles that doesn't has a reliable sources but their wiki are still available. A person work must be appreciated rather than downgrade them. Thank you. Lonjing (talk) Lonjing (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Lonjing if you could add some of the links to tv shows, magazines and institutes that you mention to this article it would help other editors decide if this photographer/author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. A person might be really talented, have published several books, etc., but unless other people have written or spoken about them extensively in "reliable sources" the person does not qualify for a Wiki article. Take a look at notability guidelines here and especially WP:Creative. ABF99 (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ABF99. By using wikipedia, I agree to the Terms of Use and Policy. He was also facilitate by london herpetalogists for his book. It seems you enjoy discovering and researching about notable and not-so-notable people and organizations, Great. I believe the person does qualify for a Wiki article. I don't have enough links to produce, but in addition to that I can post the images. Having said that, I already proved my point that most of his works were showcase on shows and magazines rather than on websites for references, reliable sources not available online. It's upto Wikipedia community to decide whether the article tend to be kept or deleted. Hoping for a positive outcome. Lonjing (talk) Lonjing (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until better sourcing is available but feel free to draft and userfy for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as undersourced. (His skill, in your eyes or mine, is irrelevant to his Wikipedia-article-worthiness; but because this non-issue has already been brought up above, I'll chime in too: IMHO, the saturated color palette is lurid and repellent.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to issues of notability. His color palette is a result of over processing with HDR software. More notable recognition and critical references should be cited. N0TABENE (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Lu-Salnikova[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no substantive claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR for anything more than existing, which is resting entirely on primary (website of the company that publishes her work) and unreliable (her profile on GoodReads and reviews on blogspot blogs) sourcing with not a shred of reliable source coverage provided. A writer doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie on here just because she exists; it takes media coverage which verifies that she passes a notability criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur. Find no coverage of any sort, no news, no scholar, no book reviews, nothing other than personal websites or publishers who are trying to market her works. SusunW (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches were pretty consistent. Nothing on any of them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can happen. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability as per @SusunW. Quis separabit? 02:19, 10 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 as this seems well sourced and if there's any further need for deletion, we'll get to that when it comes later. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quintiq[edit]

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

This article should be deleted from wikipedia because it was created with spam blacklisted references, the SPA editor who created this page is clearly undisclosed paid editor with COI and violating wikipedia terms of service. The sole purpose of this article is to use wikipedia to promote the corp and disrupting Wikipedia's integrity.

There is no significance or notability proved by 2 references in article. Google search shows only press releases and passing casual mentions in news reports. "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" does not make a corporation notable see last point of WP:ORGDEPTH. The organization is not significant enough to have enough sources. Many search results on google are about the same word for other corps or use of word and combination of press releases, event mentions, routine coverage but not WP:ORGDEPTH. Drewziii (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was easily able to find good RS about the company: Cisco case study, Ernst and Young, lengthy review in sector journal. LaMona (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: LaMona's sources plus NY Times interview, Fortune article. I pruned this article in July and no one has come back to re-spamify it so probably safe on that front. Vrac (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be quite a bit out there on News. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I took some time and fleshed out the article with sources provided by LaMona and Vrac, plus some I found. IMO notability is now well-established. I think the promotional tone is all gone, too, but I'll let someone else remove those tags if they feel it's appropriate. The article could still stand to have a section on its corporate culture, which is interesting and has sources available, but there's only so much writing about businesses I can do in one day. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 05:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football. Sandstein 09:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1900–09[edit]

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

This article is no longer needed as each individual season now has it's own page. Originally they did not. This page has now been rendered redundant.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same thing for different decades:

Zaqwert (talk) 03:05, September 15, 2015‎ (UTC) Note that this AfD was not properly formed with the standard AfD nomination template, nor listed on the central AfD nomination queue, and did not appear on any of the AfD indexes as a result. I have added the proper AfD template header to this page and manually added nominator Zaqwert's signature, etc. [1], and listed this AfD nomination on the Articles for Deletion log [2]. Cbl62 has listed this AfD on the AfD lists for American football and Alabama-related deletion discussions, as noted below. Concerned editors should now be able to find this discussion via the usual notices. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the nominator is correct that there are separate articles for each individual season, these decade articles are now redundant. I would support either deleting all of them or redirecting them to the main Alabama Crimson Tide football article. Cbl62 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect, as described hereafter - These decade articles should be redirected to 1900 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1910 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1930 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1940 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1960 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, 1970 Alabama Crimson Tide football team and 1980 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, respectively, in order to preserve the edit history and proper licensing of previously created content of each of the 60 daughter articles that were split from the content on these decade pages. Furthermore, each daughter article should have it noted on the 60 daughter article talk pages that the content was split from the specific decade article and by means of a dummy edit summary inserted into the 60 daughter article histories. There are specific template notices for the talk page attributions for both parent and daughter articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football, per prior AfD precedent. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More is required, EJ. Please see explanation above. The content creator attribution of cut-and-pasted content must be preserved for copyright and Wikipedia free-licensing purposes. See explanation immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure that more is really required here. The individual season articles do not appear to be "cut-and-pasted" content, with the possible exception of the schedule, which is not copyrightable in any event. Instead, the individual season articles appear to be highly-detailed content, in most or all cases prepared by @Patriarca12:, bearing very little, if any, relationship to the old decade articles. In any event, I am fine with a "redirect" option, as noted above, though I think the idea of redirecting an article covering an entire decade to an article covering only one of the ten alleged "daughter" articles doesn't really make sense to me. A better option IMO is to redirect to the appropriate subheading of the true parent article, i.e., the decade article on the 1960s would be redirected to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Paul "Bear" Bryant era (1958–1982) and the decade article on the 1930s would be redirected to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Wade and Thomas (1923–1946). Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we can only have one redirect per page, the target page of the redirect is a judgment call if there are multiple credible options. Your suggested redirects of the Alabama football by coaching eras are as good as any, but present the obvious problem of split decades during the coaching tenures. Given that we have only one redirect per page, to what article or specific article section would the decade articles for the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and 1940s redirect? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Alabama person may have a better idea, but here would be my suggestions:

1900s and 1910s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Early 1900s

1920s and 1930s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Wade and Thomas (1923–1946)

1940s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Drew and Whitworth (1947–1957)

1960s and 1970s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Paul "Bear" Bryant era (1958–1982)

1980s: redirect to Alabama Crimson Tide football#Perkins and Curry (1983–1989) Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the content is notable of each article. All that has happened is that each section of the history of the team is broken in to easily manageable and logical sections for separate articles. Merge or re-direct would result in one larger article of the same content, making maintenance, research, and retrieval of data much more difficult. Nothing to gain by redirect or merge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC) --- Delete and redirect. Nevermind, missed that each year article is also created.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Dirtlayer1. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All as described by User:Dirtlawyer1, which would seem to be safest option where it comes to maintaining correct attribution. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 11 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 - nominator withdrew (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umut Kekıllı[edit]

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

Turkish footballer. I'm no football expert, but this guy's bio has far less sources than we expect a BLP to have, raising concerns both regarding WP:V and WP:N generally, and WP:NFOOTY specifically, as it seems that the teams he played for did not play in top-level leagues. But there may be relevant Turkish-language sources. Sandstein 19:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kekıllı appeared in 6 Turkish Super Lig (fully-pro league) matches for Kocaelispor which satisfies NFOOTY. Article needs some work, but that's not a reason to delete. Jogurney (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jogurney passes WP:FOOTY has played 6 matches in a WP:FPL Süper Lig for Kocaelispor .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played in the Turkish Super Lig, meaning the article passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. The above is not convincing - to retain a WP:BLP, we still require reliable sources, and per WP:GNG, we still require substantial coverage in reliable sources. However, surprisingly, the man is covered by the German lowbrow media as a participant in a dancing show, e.g. at [3]. I suppose that's enough to barely satisfy requirements. Sandstein 18:55, 4 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 Snow keep, please request moves at WP:RM not WP:AFD. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Davis (county clerk)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO1E. We now have an article about the "controversy", so this article is superfluous. Elizium23 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would tend to agree. This is covered in the controversy article which is a much better place for it since the issue deals with more than just her protest. Outside of this, she is not known for anything that would qualify her for her own page. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – This woman has received significant, lasting news coverage since her arrest, and isn't just some random person but is an elected politician in Kentucky, so that adds to her notability. The same-sex marriage controversy is what majorly makes her notable enough for her own article. Per WP:BIO1E, "If media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and move to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy and delete Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy (a new article that should not have been created and has very few contributors) – The person who made this nomination is ignorant of the discussion that has been taking place since mid-September about this article's existence and it's name and has not contributed to the recent discussion or to very much improvement of this article. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, the editors and I who have maintained this Kim Davis article are waiting for an administrator to decide on the matter of whether or not there should be one article about Kim Davis' controversy or two articles: one about Kim Davis' biography and another of her controversy (and possibly a third about all of the clerks in Kentucky). This is a time-wasting, drive-by nomination and should be considered as such. I would like to convince the editor who made this nomination to catch up with current events (Davis has been in the news this week regarding the less-than-truthful way her attorneys characterized her meeting with the pope), catch up with the recent discussion (multiple editors contribute multiple ideas to this article's talk page multiple times per day), and consider the idea of moving this article to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy and consider the idea of nominating Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy for deletion. Prhartcom (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On procedural grounds this afd should be stopped because there are ongoing RFC's that predate this afd on similar topics as raised here. In any event there is notability of the person, that there was a spinoff article is no reason to delete the main article, so Keep. AlbinoFerret 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep - The subject of the article is at the center of a historic series of events directly related to the most significant civil rights legal case of the past 40-plus years. As noted in WP:BIO1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Davis has taken her fight to SCOTUS; she's been jailed for contempt of court; she's the subject of satire and parody; and she has even managed to meet the Pope. Here are some additional facts to consider:

Since this article was created 32 days ago, it has been viewed 327,566 times
Someone is reads the article every 9 seconds
The article is referenced to 123 reliable sources
154 contributors helped to build the article
Google has indexed 467 news articles about Kim Davis
Fox News has 162 articles about Kim Davis
CNN has 310 articles about Kim Davis
The New York Times has 268 articles about Kim Davis
Kim Davis has been the subject of newspaper coverage across the globe including Le Figaro, Le Monde, the Sydney Morning Herald, and The Hindu
Kim Davis has received persistent news coverage for more than 3 months

The reasons why we have notability standards is because 'We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." This subject easily and obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN (#2) and WP:GNG, and in no way violates WP:BLP or WP:NOT.- Mr X 20:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that I strongly oppose renaming this article as noted in my arguments in the talk page [4]. A move request is the correct process for renaming an article, not AfD.- Mr X 15:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and move to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy and delete Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy (a new article that should not have been created and has very few contributors) (per Prhartcom). There should not be two identical articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I've never agreed this article should exist and voted delete previously. The article on the incident is sufficient; Kim Davis is an absolute 1E, a one-hit-non-wonder. It's her actions and the fallout from them that are the subject, not her. Notability isn't inherited through other persons nor is it inherited via events that center around an incident (or incidents). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, the previous result was a clear snow keep: 19 keep, 2 delete, 1 redirect. Your contention that the article should be about the event, and not the person, fails to note that the article is indeed primarily about the event, and then some biographical content is justified. This controversy is focused on the actions of Kim Davis, since the other two clerks in Kentucky who object haven't made any notable splash in RS. That forces us to follow COMMONNAME and what RS say and keep her name in the title, BUT it's not the optimal title; we also need to move it to the more descriptive title of Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy and delete Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy (since it's pretty much identical, and we can move their short mention to this article). -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move, redirect or merge - I think that even if Davis is not significant, that the incident is. Therefore, if the article about Davis (which probably should remain) cannot be kept, it should be merged with Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy at a title to be later determined. I also agree that "there are ongoing RFC's that predate this afd on similar topics as raised here", and that we should try to discuss all of the issues in one place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject was arguably notable before the controversy and the Pope flap can be argued to be a second controversy involving her. Also, this is an obvious keep per her wide notoriety even if commonly believed to be tied to a single controversy. Kim Davis is a notable person, period. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Article is not about the clerk but the controversy, and the article should be so titled. Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given that there's already an ongoing discussion on the Davis page about these issues, this nomination is rather unhelpful. Branching off into other places to mere rehash the same things that are already being talked about isn't a good thing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Matter already covered in controversy article. It seems quite a few editors in the US of A think any individual involved in a single controversy or who has met the Pope is notable enough for a BLP. This is a clear-cut case of WP:GEOBIAS. In the UK a few years ago, a couple refuse to allow a gay couple to share a bed at their guest house, on the basis of their "Christian values" They were ordered to pay compensation and lost all appeals. This controversy does not have an article, let alone a BLP for the guest house owners. If this happened in South Africa or New Zealand or Greenland would an article have been created? This is also a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" Also, take note of this "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Are editors here now arguing Davis is as notable as a political assassin? AusLondonder (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is indeed far more notable then Davis herself, but the two pages are linked right now in terms of ongoing editorial disputes. The stick is far from being dropped, so to speak. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder, like the nominator, it doesn't sound like you have read the article or understand the situation. Please read the comments above. Please actually read the Kim Davis article and notice that it is much more well-researched and well-sourced than the Kentucky article. If you object to the existence of two articles on this subject, please understand that the Kentucky article is the one that needs to be deleted and the Kim Davis article needs to be renamed to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy and become the controversy article. Prhartcom (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets notability and the article is well-sourced.--JumpLike23 (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I guess in terms of wanting respect for procedure, I'm going to go ahead and formally just note that I want the article to be kept at least for now. Ideally, I think that Davis is not as notable as the controversy that she created and the negative social, cultural, and political influences from her malign actions (not to mention that this is an ongoing matter). The best solution could very well be for there to be no Kim Davis article and all of the related content moved over to the Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy article. That's what I predict will eventually happen since it's most in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Until then, though, the necessary option is to keep this article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability and is well-sourced. It is not unusual for an elected official that has garnered a fraction of this much attention to have a far less detailed article. This seems like a valid keep. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 07:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no "controversy" beyond her, and she is, while loathsome, internationally notable. This article should be kept, and the article on the "controversy" deleted, since the only purpose that article serves is to try to not have an article about Davis personally. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Internationally notable"? How many people in India have heard of it? Have you read WP:ONEEVENT, by the way? AusLondonder (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Australia, and I've heard about her plenty, so yes, "internationally notable". Trying to have this deleted on the basis of WP:ONEEVENT makes no sense because there is no event, there's an antagonist. Her actions, her court cases, her political interactions, the story is about her personally and not one thing. People are hella grasping at straws here to find an "event" that they can use to try to justify WP:ONEEVENT on because there isn't one, and if they succeed our content will be the worse for it: were we covering a similar equivalent twenty years ago, we would unquestionably be writing about the antagonist themselves, not a faux-"controversy" article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Mexico and was recently involved in a discussion with people from Belize, Jamamica, Barbados and Trinidad on this very topic. She is internationally recognized. Her, not an event. Her actions are being questioned on the basis of her claim that she can break a law with impunity when she is a public officer. Her story and actions are much bigger than just the same-sex marriage controversy. SusunW (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable but definite Keep. I hate to recognize her noteworthiness, but she has certainly become noteworthy. I intentionally avoided adding her name to the "Same-Sex Marriage in the United States" page to avoid giving her fame she didn't deserve. Eventually however her name was in the news so much that it couldn't be denied that she is at least infamous on a national if not international scale. One hit wonder or not, she is notable in history. The aforementioned reasons others have listed here are more than enough reason to close this rfD now. Njsustain (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Njsustain, you are admitting an obvious bias, which, fortunately, you were able to overcome. As editors, we do not do that. We present what is in the reliable sources and never let our POV influence us. Prhartcom (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We are still hearing about her on the news, and this will continue to be something that can be brought up during the ongoing same-sex marriage controversy in the U.S. She seems notable enough for her own article. Versus001 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains over a 100 references. That is enough to show notability. JDDJS (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no merger. She is notable for her actions, the same as George Wallace was notable for his, Rodney King was notable for his, or Jim Jones was notable for his. As stated above, from an international perspective her actions are much broader than simply a same-sex marriage controversy and a merger to an article entitled with her name and the same-sex marriage controversy would be inappropriate. Events and the people, as historically shown by the examples given, are not the same. The issue of whether a public official can flaunt the law or a portion of it is not the same as a simple case of refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. SusunW (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Kim Davis with George Wallace? He was a governor of a state and a presidential candidate -- Kim Davis doesn't come anywhere close to his stature. Comparing her with Rodney King? That's a strange segue -- he asked everybody to get along. Davis has done that? Comparing her with mass-murderer Jim Jones? Good heavens. That's an even stranger segue. They were all notorious and famous for numerous reasons. Kim Davis is a 1E; this article and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi Actually, there are aspects of similarity to all three. Most similar event to Wallace's. Her case is similar to King's in that he was non-notable before the event. He was a taxi driver. After the event, he was scrutinized repeatedly for the remainder of his life. Jim Jones as well. Little known pastor, until he moved to California and began courting media attention. After, the event his life was scrutinized in minute detail. However her stance works out on the same-sex marriage issue, it would seem she will remain on the public stage, if our history is any guide. SusunW (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History is a guide in my comments above and my comments now: Wallace wasn't a one-hit-non-wonder like Kim Davis. She is known for one event. That's it. Wallace was a long-term Governor and well-known politician in the South. He ran for president. There's no comparison between the two. Rodney King was known for one event, however, his one event became a trial. Big difference. And, truthfully, I think he would be insulted to be compared to Davis. Jim Jones was known long before Jonestown in his home state of Indiana and in the San Francisco and Northern California areas. Again, your examples are non-applicable. I know, however, that I won't convince you of that. For whatever reason, you've decided that a 1E individual deserves an encyclopedia article about her regardless of how this encyclopedia is WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kim Davis is known for several events: winning an election, denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, petitioning the Supreme Court, going to jail for contempt of court, and for exaggerating her brief meeting with the Pope. WP:BLP1E exists so that we don't create articles about private citizens who have had brief flurries of fame, for example, for being arrested for drunk driving. WP:BIO1E exists so that we don't have articles about low-profile people who have had insignificant roles in single events, such as George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating. - Mr X 00:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an election: A local election. Not notable -- we don't do articles on elected officials in podunk towns that have no notability just because they are elected officials. Denying marriage licenses: That's covered in WP:1E. Petitioning the Supreme Court, going to jail for contempt, allowing her attorney to exaggerate her moment with the Pope: none of these things are notable. What has given her pseudo-notability is the news media. And policy on that kind of thing is covered in WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The multitude of sources that cover each of these events disagree.- Mr X 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Just because it's covered, that doesn't make it notable, content- or article-worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - She has garnered national attention with a deluge of press articles, legal proceedings, even meeting with the Pope. She is notable and the article meets the requirements of notability. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"She earned this article" Huh? Article subjects "earn" articles in Wikipedia as if it is a prize? That's certainly not the focus of the encyclopedia. Can't say I'm sure how you came to believe this. Please see directly above for how comparing her to Wallace is not applicable. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I clarified the issue. Your views are your views and my views are my views. It's ok if they are different, but it begs the question why would you lobby so strongly against an article that has more sources that most bios. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - like it or not, she has become a notable historical figure. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, deleting Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy per Prhartcom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rename to event/merge to event article per WP:BLP1E no coverage other than that directly related to her actions on the same sex marriage, all we can do is create a pseudo biography. Miller v. Davis is a potential merge/redirect target. Once she becomes a FOX talkshow host, then maybe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain why you think the subject meets the three criteria of WP:BLP1E, especially #2 and #3.- Mr X 20:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it is covered in the linked policy at WP:1E - there is no indication we are ever going to be able to write anything about Davis that is not simply a pseudo biography WP:PSEUDO duplicating content from the article about the event. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That WP:VAGUEWAVE doesn't answer the question. I'll make it easy for you: Criteria #2 states "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". In turn, Who is a low profile individual states: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event." How can her stumping with Huckabee and hobnobbing with the Pope be seen as anything other than seeking attention?- Mr X 21:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
with re: 2) as someone who is known for not doing her job, it is hard to claim with a straight face that you foresee she is going to be noted for something else. But if that is not going to satisfy you, then ignore that I linked to WP:BLP1E and just utilize WP:1E and WP:PSEUDO. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:1E: "ff the event is highly significant (it is), and the individual's role within it is a large one (it is), a separate article is generally appropriate (it is). The essay that you linked to, while interesting, does not carry the weight of consensus, nor is it applicable to this subject.- Mr X 22:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely WHAT is relevant / important about her that is not appropriately covered/coverable in the article(s) about the event? *::::::And while the "essay" clearly explains what a pseudo biography is and why its bad, it is the WP:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event which tells us not to create one: "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename into event entry She is only relevant due to this event. The event is notable and she absolutely has a place on the entry for that event, but Kim Davis as a person does not need a separate page. Leuqarte (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she took her 15 minutes of fame and grabbed for another 3 hours. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrX, but rename to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy for obvious BLP1E reasons. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with SusunW's analysis, including the subsequent commentary. Kim Davis is notable not just for the one event, but several other events that sprang from that, and now also for the Vatican's denial of her version of events when meeting with the pope. In addition to BIO1E's suggestion that if she's significant within the event, she deserves her own article (like George Wallace), she now fails to meet any of the criteria in the complementary guideline of BLP1E, which suggests deleting or not creating a biography only if all of the criteria are met. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 01:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not WP:1E. Coverage of the subject has moved past what would be expected if the coverage was only of one event. Without finding the exact citation, there has been coverage about the subject's change in political affiliation, her religious beliefs, and electoral history. This subject-matter coverage is only tangentially related to the controversy and background of Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy and Miller v. Davis. That said, the article should be trimmed and portions of the material moved to the other pages to ensure appropriate weight to the subject. Enos733 (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not quite comparable to George Wallace (even without the stand in the schoolhouse door, being governor of Alabama is notable in and of itself), but the coverage in this case has been long-lasting and become a topic in the US presidential race with two candidates, Huckabee and Cruz, openly supporting her. Per the BLP1E concern, the proposal to rename the article into one on the controversy is reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Sometimes, an issue like this becomes a cause celebre. It will be cited as a precedent; so worth keeping. However, she will probably remain famous only for the stand that she took, so that an appropriate rename would be good. Nevertheless, we only need one article on this. Others should be redirected to it. Kim Davis marriage license controversy might be an appropriate title, but if she gains notability for other reasons, we can move it back. I would compare this with notorious child murders, which the article commonly ends off as something like "murder of Jane Foo". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Robinson (Labour politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary election candidate, who fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 19:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on borough councillors, or on unelected candidates for higher office. A local councillor might get over WP:NPOL #3 if enough reliable source coverage were shown to confer a WP:GNG pass, but that hasn't been demonstrated here — and a person who didn't win election to Parliament gets an article only if you can show that he was already notable enough for an article before he was a candidate, so that doesn't count for anything either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN local politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panos Armenakas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG NextGenSam619^t@lk 17:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 17:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 17:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619^t@lk 17:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The last Afd had more than half the votes going to keep the article, with the overall result deemed no consensus. He hasn't lost any notoriety since the previous nomination, but has since been selected in Australia's U17 World Cup squad. A quick Google search of his name shows countless credible sources as to his career thus far, which has him passing the GNG with ease. I reaffirm that he hasn't lost notoriety within the last 6 months, but has rather gained it. - J man708 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is about a 17 year football player who is eligible to represent multiple countries has gathered some media attention in Australia due to his perceived immense talent and potential to one day become a star player in Australian football. We so rarely have such a talent that when a player from Australia starts attracting interest from Barcelona everyone in Australian football circles starts going a little overboard and that's why we have seen a number of articles about the lad, everyone gets excited. Hypothetically if his footballing career ended today; would we keep his article? I would say no. Up to now all he has done is played for a few youth team in Europe... there's certainly nothing notable about that. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, he is a 'wonderkid' and yes there is a fair amount of media coverage. He does, however, clearly fail WP:NFOOTY and we do not have a crystal ball so there is no guarantee that he will definitely play a professional game in the future. We shouldn't really have articles on exciting footballers of the future unless there is an extreme amount of coverage from reliable sources. Spiderone 12:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, but just as obviously meets WP:GNG. Loads of coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simply not enough significant, non-WP:ROUTINE coverage. Giant Snowman 18:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with significant coverage over the years [5] [6] [7]. Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per NFITZ, has received national level coverage over a number of years. Substantial articles were written about him ten years ago and continue to be written. Seems therefore to meet GNG, making NFOOTY irrelevant. Additional sources discussing the player ar significant length can be found here:

Interview - admittedly a blog, but no indication it is unreliable, particularly with the amount of newspaper coverage the player has generated.
Newspaper article from 2014

I see no real difference between the player here and someone like Sonny Pike, there's plenty of coverage of a non-routine nature out there. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz.Fails WP:NFOOTY but passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. (For clarity, this result refers only to the Journal of Disability Studies. The Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences, mentioned here, is listed at a separate discussion.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Disability Studies[edit]

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

Completely unsourced The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Publisher (Integrated Science Publishing) is on the list of bogus journal publishers. This journal appears to be non-existent as no articles are available. Article says the journal started publication in 2015. ISSN was issued in 2015 by National Science Library of India [8]. Ignoring the likely po9ssibility that this is a scam journal, it is in any case at best a future journal, not a current one. LaMona (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LaMona. Evidence of existence is tenuous at best, evidence of notability is nonexistent. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Take a look at his talk page User talk:Gstfconf . What do you think?The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly think that I'm not surprised. These faux journals generally come in groups - sometimes very large groups - coming from the same publisher. The user is undoubtedly a COI. All that we can do is catch them as they are added to WP and delete them -- I don't see any way to prevent them. I'm also curious about the ISSN process. I didn't see anything on the page about payment, but I assume that there is some payment for them. The Indian ISSN agency is issuing ISSNs for these journals, and it's hard to believe that they don't know that these journals may never result in anything when a publisher asks for dozens of them at a time. Then again, among these opportunistic journals there may be some legitimate ones, ones that actually provide an outlet for scholars who can't compete with first world researchers. It's a huge dilemma. In any case, I think we should consider longevity for journals -- that they have to have published for n years OR have had some extraordinary, verifiable, short history. That would eliminate most of these bogus startups.LaMona (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Special:Contributions/Withkamlesh -- who has added the journal title to list pages, which will then need a cleanup. I don't, however, know that we have grounds for asking for a block, other than that these folks are causing us a lot of cleanup work. LaMona (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NOTHERE is probably a valid reason to block. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable: not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Failing WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect that many of the journals listed at List of Disability Studies journals are also non-notable recent creations by the same editor. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milena Szymczyk[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats, web searches turn up social media and youtube videos Kraxler (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 16:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler - Fails NSKATE & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafał Dawidowski[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG, no sources in the article except ice-skating stats and dead links, web searches fail to turn up any coverage Kraxler (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kraxler - Fails NSKATE & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kraxler. Quis separabit? 02:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AMAN Jordan[edit]

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

No indication of organizations significance, single primary source. That an organisation or charity exists isn't reason in itself to be included in WP. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the website seems closed now first of all and my multiple searches found nothing at all for this specifically thus simply nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 16:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete complete lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Sandstein 09:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Tenpenny[edit]

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

This video game character is not the subject of in-depth (significant) coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Everything noteworthy about this character (which tends to be passing mentions/listicles about his in-fictional-universe context) can be adequately explained in the main video game's article. (A redirect there would be sufficient.) Tenpenny had no in-depth coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 15:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The article currently has six sources: three are primary, two are listicles, and one is a worthy award. While I do love San Andreas, and particularly the character of Tenpenny, I don't think there's enough information (here or elsewhere) to warrant a separate article. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rhain1999's points. --Rubbish computer 16:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nominator (and the commentators here) are misguided as there's been a plenty of coverage. Including "even" in books. And "passing mentions/listicles about his in-fictional-universe context" apparently now include critically acclaimed voice acting, including at last one major award. Also for example http://www.gamesradar.com/classicradar-the-best-videogame-stories-ever/?page=4 (where Tenpenny makes a big part of it) or http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/09/12/the-11-be GTA is right now the biggest entertainment franchise of them all, at least in terms of money). And speaking of money, http://www.ew.com/article/2011/10/27/samuel-l-jackson-highest-grossing-actor while http://www.digitalspy.com/celebrity/best-in-showbiz/a516113/gta-5-best-celebrity-appearances-in-the-game-series.html --AggressiveNavel (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only "books" that Tenpenny is mentioned in, besides books about Grand Theft Auto itself (i.e. The Meaning and Culture of Grand Theft Auto) appear to be small (and unreliable) fan books. As for the four sources that you provided: three are listicles, and one only has a passing mention (literally one sentence, in brackets). I'm not saying that the character/performance wasn't critically acclaimed, but unless a number of reliable independent sources provide in-depth coverage on Tenpenny, the article should be redirected. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And whatever would even constitute this "in-depth coverage on Tenpenny"? And when you know what you look for, did you even try? Arguably the single best received non-protagonist in one of the all-time best selling and most popular pieces of pop culture worldwide, "not noteworthy". --AggressiveNavel (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think czar summed it up quite well here: "we should only be writing about characters that get actual coverage about them as individuals (notability). It has little to do with what you feel has sources/worth, but more with what the sources have had to say about it. Ellie (The Last of Us) is an excellent example of a character that has been discussed in depth by sources, and it shows.". As for Tenpenny being the "single best received non-protagonist": while I could certainly provide many examples against that, I shan't on the basis that you have not provided any sources that support your statement. It's not about what we personally find "noteworthy", it's how reliable sources discuss the character as an individual, and the amount and depth of these sources determine their notability. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And "how reliable sources discuss the character as an individual, and the amount and depth of these sources determine their notability" in this case here? Every PS2, PC and multiplatform magazine and website had San Andreas reviews and various features, and later there were all kinds of retrospective articles, how many of them did you check? Actually I don't know anything about Ellie, but is "presmably-less-than-Ellie" a threshold of being not "noteworthy" now? How about someone being discussed more-than-Ellie, will she be redirected then? AggressiveNavel (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide the retrospective articles about Tenpenny that I somehow did not find during my brief search, I would be happy to take a look. Also, Ellie doesn't really have much to do with this article; she's just an example of a character that has been discussed in depth by sources. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 12:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what publications did you include in your search, looking for what exactly, and with what results? I did mine, it was quick indeed and only online. So here's for example this: [9] "He remains the ultimate GTA bad guy" spoken in 2012, with GTA having been at that point already one of the most successful entertainment franchises in human history despite being "only video games", but this is is probably still not "noteworthy". How absurd is that? Or [10] in a similar vein. Or maybe something different: [11] and when we're at it, [12] (GamesRadar staff) and [13] (GamePro staff, amusingly referencing their illustration to Wikipedia! Ah, the Wikipedia before the deletionism took over and since then only became ever worse) in addition to the one by IGN that the article already has. And so on. I can go on with without even touching reviews and it's just stuff online, readily easy to find by anyone, yet allegedly nonexistying because Czar said so and said nope, nothing noteworthy here move along (and did I mention his original action was to just redirect a whole article without any discussion?). We really shouldn't be even discussing that. I see you were present at a discussion 2 years about merging the article to List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas characters. Well you know what the Czar did with THAT article (the list), without consulting anyone? Click and you'll find out! I myself only just noticed. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are appreciated (even if they are mostly short listicle entries), but please take your issues with Czar and/or Wikipedia elsewhere, they do not belong here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it to his talk page I'm sorry, was frustrated. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neutral at the moment. One one hand, the sources present so far don't seem to constitute significant coverage, they're mostly passing mentions in listicles and generic ~~"This gangster's a badass"~~ "This guy is so bad"-type empty commentary. On the other hand, his respective game has sold tens of millions of copies I believe, so I also would we surprised if there wasn't enough coverage out there somewhere to meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, what again? With your "some Virtual Fighter game" about Namco and Ridge Racer, and your confusing an uniformed policeman with a gangster now, it's like reading a Polygon article. And these sources, also the few examples I just showed here, are rather about Tenpenny's sheer evilness, as he's commonly considered one of the best villains in gaming history, plus Jackson's excellent voice acting. But yes it was the best-selling game on the PS2, with stellar reviews and tons of awards too. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken/corrected. I was thinking of Carl Johnson (Grand Theft Auto). Point still stands though, the article is severely lacking in content and sources. About 75% is in-universe plot summary, and then you've got a tiny reception section that notes there was a 35th place best- villain placement, and a 87th place villain placement, and an award Samuel L Jackson got on it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

35th out of how many? There are uncounted thousands of major villains in games. Is it tens or hundreds of thousands now? Did I say commonly? Here are some more: [14] [15] --AggressiveNavel (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter "out of how many", it matters how many sources covered the subject in significant detail. I'm currently leaning towards the other 3 redirects so far - I don't understand how any of the listicle sources you keep presenting are ever going to elevate the reception section out of anything more than a repetitive cycle of "Website X ranked him 57th best bad guy. Author Y of website X said "I liked how he was bad." What else is there? Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd show you what I'd do it with it, with a real research which I didn't even yet, nobody did, but now I don't even want to waste my time for what will be a pointless exercise in futility. It's a poor article now, yes, but you're never going to be satisfied. Between your unrealistic exceptions and your disparaging attitude, complete with you originally commenting not even knowing what article is discussed but having your deletionist mindset fully set already, it just isn't worth it. And I know CJ's next, and all the other GTA protagonists, as you already commented how CJ is nothing but "only a badass gangster" with what you call "passing mentions" and so in your mind he's got to go. Which is a shame, but guess I have to learn not to care. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rhain1999's comments. 86.44.79.61 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per my comments above. Certainly a plausible search term, and should have content present at the parent article, but there's not significant coverage dedicated to the subject of the article - the character. All the sources that have been brought up so far are passing mentions with very little content or substance... Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you and others even understand what "redirectig" here even means. Because the list of the characters has been redirected already, to a bief article section that says "The Guinness World Records 2009 Gamer's Edition lists it as the video game with the largest voice cast" and despite an unprecedented consumer and media attention it seems nothing there in its characters is otherwise "noteworthy" anyway, except of CJ for a time being. Like there's Development of Fez as it's super noteworthy while of course there's no development of San Andreas article and son no sub-articles of any kind because Wikipedia clearly has priorities. So what redirecting here (which has already happened) meant for an extemely successful and critically acclaimed character, considered by many one of the greatest not only in the pop culture phenomenon that is GTA but also in the very history of games, is he's been erased completely except his mentions in the plot and a note who voiced him which is all that remains. But let's keep it up and just erase all GTA characters everywhere, then all game characters, and their lists too of course. Because yes lots of other lists already have been redirected recently, it's not enough to listify anymore and everything needs to be purged completely. So this is what "redirecting" means in this context. And with this I'm going to leave you here, because I'm burned out. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The jabs and snippiness really isn't appreciated, and won't get your argument anywhere. Development of Fez exists because some editors realised that the development itself was notable, so they took the effort to create a separate article. Clearly, no-one has taken the effort to do the same with San Andreas; this is down to the lack of interest from individual editors, not "because Wikipedia clearly has priorities". If you have found sources that support Tenpenny being "an extremely successful and critically acclaimed character" (of the five provided above, four are listicles and one is a passing mention), by all means write something in draftspace. But complaining about the recent deletions and redirects on Wikipedia (which all seem to be warranted, and supported by guidelines, in my opinion) will not support your argument. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the GamesRadar and GameInformer sources brought up here, and the IGN source cited in the article, which goes rather in-depth with the character. These sources also discuss why he's important to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The fact that these are listicles should not even be relevant, just as long as they constitute as significant coverage, which I would argue for with those sources. I'm not convinced that that his article should be condensed into the San Andreas article (which is already a rather big article) instead of just keeping his own article. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That they are "listicles" means that they are only important to the author alongside 9 or 99 other characters. We don't keep WP articles for the aggregation of throwaway superlatives. I see no reason given why the little coverage called "rather in-depth" would not be adequately covered in a character list within the main article, which has no extant length concerns. czar 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is coverage. It does not matter if it comes from a listicle. If anything, being included in a lot of listicles shows that the character is more important than others, making them deserve their own article (at least as long as the listicles in question don't only constitute passing mentions, which they don't). Kokoro20 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, "coverage is coverage" is not true. Many of these listicles are closer to passing mentions, and they're not saying much of substance that would create actual content in the article. Still not sure how it would evolve out of its current status of 75% plot summary, 25% journalists saying "This bad guy is bad." Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some listicles do only consist of passing mentions, but others do not. My point was, people seem to be discounting listicles here, just because they're listicles, without taking the context of the listicles in question into consideration. That's what I meant when I said "coverage is coverage". Some of the listicles brought up here definitely consist of more than just passing mentions, if you ask me. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for others. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:33, 11 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 as this is likely the consensus and not to mention geographic locations are almost always kept. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsai[edit]

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

Very small article a village in india that may not meet notability Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND which states in part: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low." My only concern with this article is its lack of citations but a cursory check does in fact verify that it's a real place. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a real town to me. Population centers are notable regardless of size.--Oakshade (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Settlements are notable regardless of size. The Census of India search engine appears to be broken but an unofficial mirror says this place had 5,162 persons in 2011. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and I strongly suggest the nom to familiarize himself or herself with policy prior to any further nominations of notable places. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Film Magic[edit]

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

Article was deleted via PROD then refunded about a month ago with the promise of more sources. Unfortunately it's still a WP:REFBOMB of brief mentions, directory listings, sources of dubious stature, press releases, etc... Fails WP:CORP. Vrac (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad the best I found was Books and browser links. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listing all the executives and all of the few films they distributed indicates they have nothing much to say about themselves. Failed attempt at a promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 11:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that this can be verified to exist, if only as a dot on a map, so it should be kept per our practice regarding geographic places and settlements. Sandstein 09:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chalwa[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable location or place. Google search turns up almost nothing because search for "Chalwa" turns up "chalva", the tasty treat. Joke of an article. Quis separabit? 14:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO PLEASE DELETE THIS REDIRECT -- Cnalwa Quis separabit? 01:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I honestly thought I'd be able to find something about this place to at least prove it exists. But I really couldn't. As far as populated places go, I tend to set a pretty low bar for a "keep." --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any mention whatsoever of this place in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some atlases show it. Even if you look up a map of Western Sahara on google that are some that show this place. A couple of the different forms of National Geographic atlases shows it on the map and even National Geographic Visual Atlas Of The World shows the place in light bold meaning that it's population is represented to be between 10,000 and 100,000. Hey that would make it bigger than notable small cities like Aspen, Colorado, or Montpelier, Vermont or St. Moritz, Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joburg Joe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Joe above, I did look at some maps and indeed found Chalwa on some of them ([16]). I'm utterly baffled that there are virtually zero references on this place to be found but based on that map, I have to change my !vote to "keep" merely because it appears to be a real place. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe -- so you changed your vote from delete to keep based on the fact that you "really couldn't" find out anything about the place and also that there are "virtually zero references on this place"? Interesting. Quis separabit? 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete This has much the same problem as Aridal: the maps appear to be showing a feature that doesn't exist. GMaps shows that there is no inland road south through these two towns, and indeed no sign of any human-built features. The only thing that seems to be an "improvement" compared to Aridal is that the lack of text sources means they cannot contradict each other. A dot on a map is, by itself, not a good enough reference. Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a real place (at least the UN thinks so, their map of the Western Sahara shows it), seems reliably sourced as to existence and recognition, thus passes WP:GEOLAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND based on the UN map provided above by Carlos S. You have to hunt a bit to find it, but it is on there. Populated places of the present or past are regarded as inherently notable by longstanding consensus at AfD. Carrite (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That UN map is extremely problematic, and I do not regard it as a reliable source. There are a number of W. Sahara stub articles for which it is apparently the only source, and I have been unable to verify that any of them genuinely exist. It shows a road passing through Chalwa and running north into Morocco which I can find no trace of. I have looked at this and numerous other spots in aerial mapping, and have not been able to find a trace of any them. We cannot even verify from this map that it is a settlement; for all we know it could be a military base or even an uninhabited crossroads, assuming that it is even there. All we can verify from the map is the placename, and historically we have not considered that good enough justification for an article. I have not found a source for the cartography in this map, and given the problems in matching it up with other mapping (and especially aerial imaging) I don't think it can be assumed that it is based upon accurate information; and the first requirement of a reliable source is that it be accurate. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe fails WP:V Secret (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Settlements with over 10,000 residents are far to big of a populated place to have their article deleted and also far to big to deny it's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joburg Joe (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joburg Joe -- you keep saying that but you proffer no evidence that it does exist; your pinky finger (which you keep citing) doesn't cut it. If it cannot be reliably sourced -- which is unimaginable for an actual location with more than 10,000 residents -- then it can be and should deleted and its existence questioned if not denied. Quis separabit? 15:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general I'm willing to keep geographical articles that can be cited to a census. I see no evidence that this can. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 10 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 as this is another case of geographic locations almost always being kept (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keroa Union[edit]

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

Delete Keroa Union and Keroa as non-notable union in Bangladesh. The article was created without any sources and contains only OR text. Google search turns up nothing for "Keroa" or "Keroa Union" but minor info (i.e. prayer times). No official website for the community and nothing to indicate relevance. Quis separabit? 14:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a link in the article pointing to government portal. -- nafSadh did say 22:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a citation to the official web site has been provided in the article, it has a number of sub-pages, all in Bengali. It is not just a village, it is the administrative center for a number of villages which are divided into nine or ten wards (sources conflict). Generally under the WP:Notability (geographic features) guidelines such places are kept. Populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low. I also added the census citation. --Bejnar (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should point out that the population is over 30,000. Keroa Union is mentioned in recent Bengali language news stories, but WP:NOTNEWS. --Bejnar (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:GEOLAND clearly and most obviously holds. --nafSadh did say 22:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toosweet Annan[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. He only appears in website/blog with no editorial control. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found links at News and browser, there's nothing to suggest meaningful and worthwhile improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on available information, not yet a star. DGG ( talk ) 11:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Fullerton[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable best known for Filipino reality TV program Pinoy Dream Academy. Quis separabit? 14:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -source--Jondel (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jondel's sole source is almost non-existent profile at IMDb, which is and has always been an unreliable source for Wikipedia purposes, especially of notability, and should be disregarded accordingly. Quis separabit? 13:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sole. Another source from ABS-CBN was provided at the bottom of the article.--Jondel (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this??. It contains nothing that indicates her notability in any way as a reality TV star or as anything else. Sorry. Quis separabit? 02:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose although I considered redirecting to Pinoy Dream Academy but even then she seems more Non-notable and no obvious signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. And those primary sources don't exactly help establish notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2 housemates. Redirecting as redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Gonzaga[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable Filipino reality TV individual. Quis separabit? 14:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV show or simply delete as although I found a few news links for the show so far, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have the coverage, does not have the awards. Fails WP:NACTOR. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prince Basundhara of Nepal. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (banter) 10:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ketaki Chester[edit]

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

Notability. This is either WP:NOTINHERITED or WP:ONEEVENT... or possibly both. TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prince Basundhara as this seems to be the best target asm y searches found links but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her father as suggested. I have not checked if there is anything worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be wide agreement that once the original research and synthesis is removed from this article, there'll be nothing left. No prejudice against the creation of another article at the same title in the future, so long as it doesn't contain the same sorts of problems as this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human photosynthesis[edit]

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

This article freely mixes WP:OR and WP:SYN with speculative nonsense. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as human WP:SYN; the only sources that deal with the subject directly are WP:PRIMARY papers from the Human Photosynthesis Study Center (whose website will sell you a box of "QIAPI 1" photosynthesis pills for $55), the other two refer to related melanin processes without going so far as calling it "photosynthesis". The rest seems WP:OR; concluding that a long-distance swimmer was possibly photosynthesing because they had a suntan is ridiculous. There may be an article to be written about fringe theories of human photosynthesis, but not with any of this content. --McGeddon (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It is well established that human photosynthesise Vitamin D - see here for details. The BBC has an interesting account of other possibilities, based upon the traits of other animals. Between the two ideas, there seems to be something to say. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what the BBC article has to say about the topic of this article “If you imagine a person who had to get all of their energy from the sun, they’d have to be very still. Then, they’d need a high surface area, with leafy protrusions. At that point, the person’s a tree.”[17] I do not see how that supports the notability of this article. Jbh ^Talk 15:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Name change to Human Phototrophism? This name is more accurate for the described phenomenon. The mechanism described is sound, and it is in the hypothetical stages. Solis-Herrera's article is not the only source demonstrating melanin-catalyzed energy production from light. The article about the melanized pectin of birds (humans have melanin in their eye too) and vertebrate phototrophism, and also the article about melanized fungus that are able to grow larger when presented with electromagnetic radiation (light) demonstrate that melanized organisms are able to create energy from light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhototrophicHuman (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: PhototrophicHuman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

If the article is really about human phototrophism, rather than photosynthesis, then what does it have to do with people who claim to go without food? (Or even worse, without water!?) It's not clear what the scope of the article is meant to be, and it runs into problems with WP:SYNTH by making connections between these different topics. Even if the scope can be clarified, the topics are all within the range of WP:FRINGE and will need reliable sources which may be hard to find or nonexistent. --Amble (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the arguments above that this is WP:OR and WP:SYN. The journal articles are all either not credible or not relevant, so RS is an issue as well. OJPsych and Neuroscience and Medicine are published by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), which is on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. PLOS One is peer reviewed, but doesn't really have standards for inclusion. The Journal of Neurological Sciences (Turkish) is peer reviewed, though small and open-access. Current Biology is a real journal, although there are some very similarly named fake ones. So, yes, this is OR, SYN and speculative nonsense. CoI disclaimer: I have no competing interests and have not edited the article. Voting editors with a potential conflict of interest should disclose that here. Roches (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is not supported by WP:MEDRS. Fails WP:GNG if there is any research into this it is WP:FRINGE. While there may be research that can be shoehorned into the topic area I see nothing to be taken seriously in an article claiming any main stream scientific support for investigation into or study of, as the article says, "the human body [being] able to photosynthesise in the same way as a plant." Jbh ^Talk 03:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness that first line is my own hasty summary when giving the article some basic cleanup: the article originally opened "The Mechanism of Human Photosynthesis, or Phototrophism, has been hypothesized by neuroscientist Ty Shedleski." and was later edited to go straight into "Human photosynthesis, or more accurately human phototrophism, is made possible by melanin absorbing energy...". --McGeddon (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very nearly a hoax article. jps (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything that's reliably sourced can be discussed in the main article, photosynthesis. There isn't really much to say about this yet. A couple speculative articles that ask, "Wouldn't it be cool?" don't really make an encyclopedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and makes extreme claims without reliable sourcing. Edison (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a notable topic of high interest to the general public with enough available sources. Wikipedia articles shouldn't speculate themselves but convey the speculations of authorities in the particular field in a way that makes it clear to the reader that said are speculations and not established facts (the article should be checked for this if it's not already in line with that).

A short and on-point summary of the current stance of things and the various speculations on human photosynthesis can be and in this case is appropiate for a wiki-article and of high notability. More references are needed though (which is not a case of deleting the article but of improving it). --Fixuture (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be grounds for a "delete without prejudice" or a WP:TNT, because the present article has nothing good once the speculation is removed - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the other editors voting to delete above. --Krelnik (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When trimmed of content that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, what is left is non-notable content sourced to low quality publications (as noted by Roches above). ChemNerd (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per all above. Fixuture notes the possibility of a good article, but there is nothing worth saving in this one once the OR and low-quality sources are removed - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted multiple times since this discussion started, most recently by User:RHaworth under criteria A7 and G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google ceco aneez[edit]

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

What the heck is this? 333 -blue 11:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Under CSD A7 or CSD G11. Bharatiya29 (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Fajr Sepasi F.C. season[edit]

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

Article is about the season of a association football club which does not compete in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:NSEASONS. Article also does not show that it meets the broader WP:GNG criteria.

This article is a contested PROD, the tag has been removed without explanation. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NSEASONS as not a top professional league. Only the second tier in Iran and not a fully professional league. No indication of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 17:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —C.Fred (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceco aneez[edit]

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

What is this thing? A big mess. 333 -blue 10:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a big mess that it was deleted via the criteria for speedy deletion rather than the AfD process. —C.Fred (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2016 Adelaide Football Club season. It was also a cut-and-paste move but what with the editing to both pages afterwards and the fact the creator of both articles was the only editor prior to the move, a histmerge isn't required. Jenks24 (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Adelaide Crows season[edit]

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

This page is a duplicate of 2016 Adelaide Football Club season, in accordance with all other Adelaide Football Club season pages, the correct title should be XXXX Adelaide Football Club season, so this is the duplicate page. Flickerd (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - no need for an AfD, just redirect it. The-Pope (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Speedy deleted by User:Bsadowski1. (non-admin closure) Bharatiya29 (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How Do You Write Lyrics[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Bharatiya29 (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per WP:NOTHOWTO. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 09:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per WP:CSD. It is 100 percent generated spam. --Bsa dow ski1 10:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2009–10 Euroleague. Sandstein 09:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euroleague 2009–10 season attendance figures[edit]

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

Amongst the multiple issues already highlighted about this article is the lack of notability. I can find only this source that mentions the subject and I wouldn't consider it as reliable. I would merge this into the season article but there is no source and I only found a passing mention on the Euroleague website. I'm not sure it's possible to find enough independent sources to do a standalone article on historic Euroleague attendance figures so one on a single season in ludicrous ArmstrongJulian (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ArmstrongJulian (talk) 12:34, 18 September 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 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ No reason at all to delete this.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesangrel: The reason that the article creator has no sources whatsoever is quite a big one don't you think? --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)--ArmstrongJulian (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should be deleted if it fails WP:V with no cited sources since being tagged in 2013. Otherwise, merge to 2009–10 Euroleague if there is consensus that this is useful. Is there a reason attendance needs to be a standalone article? Even if it is shown to meet WP:GNG with significant coverage and proven that WP:NOTSTATS is not applicable, the WP:N guideline advises: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just put this into the Euroleague season page? Would not these info be useful? I don't understand the concept of wanting to delete everything. Actually, I believe other Euroleague season pages also have attendance listings. Maybe this is more in depth, but similar listings or whatever. I think don't delete this info, just put it into the relevant article, which is where it probably should have originally been put, rather than a separate article. But I can understand this concept of wanting to delete anything that has relevant info in it. This has relevant info in it, as would pertain to that Euroleague season article. So I don't see how deletion of it makes sense.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could choose to !vote to merge. See WP:DISCUSSAFD for how editors can contribute.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, I will vote Merge.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesangrel: At WP:DISCUSSAFD, it says: "Do not make conflicting recommendations." As it recommends, you should add <s> and </s> to your earlier !vote to strike it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main article and re-order the tables in only one, like in the latest seasons. This kind of tables work always as a section in football leagues and in the few basketball ones this stat exists. Asturkian (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since it is important info but perhaps doesn't deserve its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't anybody else troubled by the fact that this has no source? For all we know the author could have made it up or taken it from an unreliable source. I'm keeping my delete vote unless a source can be found (which I didn't achieve myself). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think sources should be found. If no sources can be located, a simple redirect may be in order. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic information. Attendence figures are primary source data that secondary sources use for comparison purposes. WP:NOT --Bejnar (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darko Talić[edit]

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

This young athlete has verifiably

played for the BiH national under 16 team
been recruited by a professional basketball team

It would appear that he has not yet played a game for a professional Basketball team, and fails the WP:NHOOPS test for notability. Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Verifiable but not notable. ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet threshold for notability in sports or athletics. Quis separabit? 15:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to team or simply delete for now as I see nothing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Verifiable article (inlane, external refs); Notability - 1. true, 2. false (with the possibility of getting changed in the future), 3. irrelevant; Note: I've made some edits to the article prior to coming there - also take in note that the discussion has started when the player hasn't appeared in a "major league" game - did yesterday.--AirWolf ^talk 00:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played one game in the ABA League, as confirmed by sources, so meets the WP:NHOOPS criterion 1, as the ABA League is a "major professional sports league". GregorB (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and NHOOPS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:NHOOPS pass, per GregorB and Editorofthewiki. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:05, 10 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 due to lack of reliable independent sources, a redirect to 500 Years Later may be appropriate at editors' discretion. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Owen 'Alik Shahadah[edit]

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

The article fails WP:N, almost all the sources are primary self-published and advocacy sources written by himself, failing WP:BLPSPS. Right now the article is working as self-promotion and publicity WP:SPIP. Rupert Loup (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert is a dishonest agenda editor with a mission across all of wikipedia. Just check the contributions. I mean how can you put this tag on this page and be serious? And the CLAIMS oh my word. Self-published, where does it say that?--Inayity (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a factual note, quite a lot of the references in the article do appear to be written by the subject. Rather than attacking the nominator, you would be better advised to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines, Inayity. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note this particular nominator has been sweeping across wikipedia deleting one website. Now are you saying this page is NOT notable? Or is the issue something else?--Inayity (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I am sure Wiki has numerous treatments for a lot of problems do you think this deletion is sincere?--Inayity (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offering a view, since I haven't had chance to review the sources properly. My point is just that the best way to counter a claim that a subject is not notable is to demonstrate that it is! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent a great deal of my time reverting sweeping removals By Rupert Loup, I think you should look into that. --Inayity (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking this to WP:AN/I if you think there's a problem. In the meantime, I highly recommend engaging with the substance of the nomination here if you don't want the article to be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What substances? The article is working for self-promotion according to one detractor? Tell me the director of 500 Years Later and Motherland is not notable? What about the claim of Self-published sources? Does Shahadah own AHS, or Pamaburuka (spelling) or African Exe? The problem here is it seems the spirit of wikipedia is often destroyed over the technical letter. Just nominating a page you do not like means what? I must waste time!--Inayity (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No he doesn't own them, but he did write those articles, and articles written by Shahadah himself do not establish his notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different issue. Is Owen Alik Shahadah worthy of a wikipedia entry. And is this nomination done in Good faith? All of these issues of sources could be have been done with a tag like Runoko Rashidi, my sincere concern based upon the recent edit patterns of the person nominating these articles is an agenda. Now what is the problem with agendas? They are not in the best interest of anyone here, nor the people reading. We need to deal with that major problem first. This is the problem with this place. The rationale for the nomination is not even valid. --Inayity (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a criteria that must be met even before you nominate an article. Has that been met? That is why I deleted the tag. Because If I wanted to I could just run around wikipedia deleting anyone I wanted (well not Chomsky or Obama). --Inayity (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you couldn't - that's what this discussion is for. If someone maliciously nominates articles for deletion without good reason, then they will be kept following the discussion. Please do not remove an AfD tag from an article again. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat, has the criteria been met for the nomination in the 1st place? --Inayity (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a flaw of wikipedia is NAMES See Jstor Alik not Owen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inayity (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

The result of Jstor, "Europe Through Arab Eyes, 1578-1727", doesn't mention Shahadah at all. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alik Shahadah

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't formed any comments yet but my searches found linsk at Books, News, browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 19:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see "Delete per Norm" is not a vote, rational needed--Inayity (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Rubbish was using common shorthand to say that deletion was proper because almost all the sources are either primary, self-published or advocacy sources written by Owen 'Alik Shahadah himself. It is a common shorthand. As you say, the Afd is not a voting process. --Bejnar (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second Bejnar's point. --Rubbish computer 08:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a strange one. A Google search returns lots of results, but after quite a lot of looking though those results, all of the mentions of Shahadah seem to be in passing. None of the sources I've found are about Shahadah, which I find odd given the number of results returned. I will continue investigating. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, initially there appear to be 6,330 Google results, but by the time I click through to page 5 of the results, that number drops to 225 and they end. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Reference Search WP:WRS doesn't give me any result. ~~Seems that Inayity has a WP:COI, see Talk:Black people#‎Arabslavetrade.com and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah~~. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well your mission is to pretend this article is not notable. Did you meet him and he hurt your feelings? What is it with this crusade against one African editor? Tell us? So he is not mentioned anywhere in any books either? He is not mentioned on Al-Jazerra as a scholar either? And Al-Akram? Even in South Africa he is on SABC and here Poetry fights xenophobia. --Inayity (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing an additional citation to a source on Shahadah. The Official Website of the City of Johannesburg is a reliable, if often primary source, website. Unfortunately, an article about a school poetry and debate contest in which the sole mention of Shahadah is that the winners were given, inter alia, a copy of his documentary film 500 Years Later does not add very much coverage, nor contribute much to his notability. --Bejnar (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BLPNOTE, He is verifiably an international film producer whose films have won awards. However, does he meet any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE? The answer unfortunately is no, and what it boils down to is lack of significant coverage. The only in depth coverage was an interview. See the essay at WP:Interviews. The reliable sources have one passing mention. The analysis of the sources currently in the article confirm the conclusion reached by the nominator, Rupert Loup, and others, namely the sources are mostly self-published or primary sources. The reliable sources do not contribute significantly toward notability. There is a noticible lack of in depth coverage.

FN1. a reliable source, Aljazeera, with one sentence about Shahadah. Good for verification, not much toward notability.
FN2. a self-published source, his film's website, not useful for verification, useful only for noncontroversial data, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN3. a self-published source, his film's website, as above
FN4. a cite to his own book, quite proper for a quotation, but add nothing to notability
FN5. his own website, not useful for verification, useful only for noncontroversial data, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN6. a reliable source, al-Akhbar. mention of his compilation and a quote not much toward coveerage or notability
FN7. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN8. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN9. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN10. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN11. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN12. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN13. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN14. a reliable source, Catholic Information Service for Africa (Nairobi), verifies receipt of "UNESCO's Breaking the Chains Award", no coverage of Shahadah
FN15. a primary source, verifies that Motherland was an AMMA nominee, no coverage of Shahadah
FN16. a primary source, verifies that Motherland won award, no coverage of Shahadah
FN17. a primary source, verifies that Motherland won award, says: "From the director of the internationally acclaimed “500 Years Later” comes this gem of a film." which goes somewhat toward notability, but is not substantive.
FN18. an interview with Shahadah, consider a self-source, See WP:SELFSOURCE
FN19. an IMDB soundtrack listing, not a reliable source

--Bejnar (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment re RFC: An inquiry has been made at the RFC procedure talk page whether the RFC filed here is improper. There's nothing in either the AfD process or the RFC process which necessarily makes it improper, but it would seem to me to at least be procedurally incompatible since AfD is a 7-day process and RFC is a 30-day process and the closing of the AfD is going to cut off the RFC before it can be completed. The AfD should not be extended to let the RFC play out, in my opinion; if the AfD is to be extended then it ought to be entirely for reasons other than the RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TransporterMan. It seems to me that because an AfD is inherently a request for comments on the possible deletion of an article, the RfC template is unnecessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, I removed the template. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was summoned via the RfC bot. Since I don't believe that's a proper use of the RfC template I am not going to express an opinion. I request that the user who utilized it in that fashion be given several severe lashes with an immense trout. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This up and coming director has not won any major awards yet, thus he has not appeared in any major media or similar reliable sources. If he were to enter in a major international film festival, or win a major award, then he would be notable. From my personal knowledge, it's actually very easy to get into the court metrage (small film corner) of the Cannes Film Festival, so he might try there. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of notability per WP:N. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the event that this article is deleted, it would be appropriate to delete the redirect at Owen alik shahadah. --Bejnar (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is pretty clear record his work is influential. He's received enough awards, especially the UNESCO award, that he passes via WP:ANYBIO. Article should be defluffed but I don't see why he fails notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ICommentThe subject won the UNICEF award @ ZIFF. The ZIFF site makes no mention of any affiliation w/ UNESCO. The use of UNESCO in the awards section borders on fabrication. Tapered (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:ANYBIO, this is an "additional criteria" section of the policy. As it states further below: "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria: If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context...". Therefore this does not appear to be an argument on its own for keeping this article. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I have looked through the sources cited and I'm afraid I have to agree with the other contributors above that they do not seem to amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources that could potentially have qualified are the Socialist Worker and RiceNPeas articles, but they were both more focussed on the film rather than the author. Therefore, I would suggest a redirect to 500 Years Later. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches didn't turn up enough to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Bharatiya29 (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshi Khurana[edit]

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

Most sources are unreliable. The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. Himanshi Khurana is a famous model, actor and people use keyword 'Himanshi Khurana wiki' to find her. 2. Music videos featuring her have got 40,853,000+ views on YouTube. 3. She has worked in Punjabi movies including Sadda Haq, Leather Life, 2 Bol. 4. She is becoming more and more famous day by day. She has also worked for companies like Makemytrip, Ayur, Pepsi, Nestle, Gitanjali Jewellers, Big Bazaar, Kingfisher, Calvin Klein et. Kavindeep (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. The wikipedia article is mostly cited to another wiki fansite and her film roles to date do not appear to be major. She's scheduled to be the female lead in a new film coming out later this month and, if she gets significant coverage on the back of this, her notability may change. Sionk (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Times of India reference appears to little more than a press release: it is taken word for word from here. I also note that the source, "PunjabUpFilms", has no Wikipedia article. This appears to me anomalous, given the extensive coverage of Indian cinema on Wikipedia. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my nomination She has acted in Punjabi movies. Punjabi movie actresses are not given much coverage in mainstream Indian English newspapers. The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think what matters is not PunjabUpFilms, what matters is that the article was published on Times of India after proper verification of the matter. She is a news personality. Maybe she has not much articles in Mainstream newspapers but there are a lots of articles and interviews of Himanshi Khurana on many India level websites. So I think this article fits the criteria to be on Wikipedia. Kindly think once again and I'm sure you will find that this article should not be deleted. Kavindeep (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn McCreary[edit]

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

Non notable poet. Receiving a Pew Fellowship is not enough for notability--most of their fellows are not notavble. None of her books seem important --the most widely held one & now my feet are maps is in only 36 worldcat libraries. I so far have not identified any major reviews. The ixnay press is not notable. Nor is having green as one's favorite color. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no better sourcing and the best I found was a few links for her books at Books and one link at Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything to establish notability. The press appears to be a 2-person publishing house with less than 12 items published since 1998. LaMona (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Code[edit]

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

WP:BLP, sourced entirely to dead links without adequate citation details to render them retrievable, of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for office and as a supporting lawyer in a single lawsuit. The first doesn't get him over WP:NPOL, so the second just makes him a WP:BLP1E at best. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than Books links. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 174.6.102.144 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroki Tsurumoto[edit]

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

Questionably notable musician as my searches found nothing good at all aside from some links for performances and such much like what's listed at his website. What's more is that this has existed since January 2005 with hardly much better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot establish notability. PK T(alk) 13:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, this person fails the basic notability guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 11:59, 10 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 an additional request to User:RegistryKey to please give new articles by new users some time to grow their articles before dragging them through a bureaucratic process like AFD, per WP:BITE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The farm road of wide area in Nanso[edit]

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

Per WP:TITLE and WP:MOS, article title is non-specific as to what road it is referring to. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/give it more time It's a translation from JP wikipedia, and was AfD'd within minutes of creation. There is more in the JP article, albeit no references. The road may not have an actual name, or the translation may just be poor. We'll need someone with knowledge of Japanese to determine which it is. LaMona (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not in a great hurry. There is a category of road in Japan, described here: ja:農道 which we could translate as "agricultural road", except that this has no obvious meaning in English. It's an ordinary road, but is "designated" for agricultural purposes, and perhaps this affects budgeting or something. The picture on that ja page includes a green sign saying 一般農道, or "ordinary agricultural road"; this "ordinary" probably has some obscure bureaucratic significance, and there are probably "special" ones too. The "wide area" in this article title is a direct translation of 広域, but the actual meaning of this is almost certainly "stretches over more than one administrative area, so it's a bit bigger than 'local'". I suppose "regional" might do, but it might be a bit short on vapidity. So OK, this is a nondescript road around 15-20 km long from nowhere in particular to somewhere else. I really cannot see that this deserves an en:WP entry; if it did, we would have thousands of such entries, for which there is no plausible likelihood that there would ever be useful English language content. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary comment: We only have ja:WP as a source, but based on this, "article title is non-specific" does not apply. This is a failed translation of the designation of a specific road. So I think the grounds for deletion should be simply "Not notable". Imaginatorium (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom should never have nominated within 10 minutes of creation but that aside it's a non notable road anyway, There's been roads on here that have been better than this article and still they were deleted so if they were deleted then quite honestly this doesn't stand a chance!, Probably won't ever be improved so no point keeping it around. –Davey2010^Talk 02:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely and draft and userfy if needed as there's simply nothing obvious to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an un-named, un-numbered, nondescript rural road. No indication at all of any notability. --DAJF (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayton Kimberly[edit]

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

Open and shut case of an unacceptable article with my searches finding nothing good much less something to suggest better notability and improvement and there's simply nothing to suggest keeping. It's worth noting this was speedied in November 2008 three months after this article started but was removed and somewhat improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I can't see any evidence he is "best known" for anything. His books have had no reviews as far as I can see (and GHD Publihsers appear to have produced no other books, suggesting these may be self-published). With such an unusual name, if anything about him exists it would be easy to spot. Unsourced promotional BLP that is way overdue to be deleted. Sionk (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book isn't found in any libraries, which adds evidence toward it being self-published and not in the regular publishing supply-chain.(The original page shows it published at Lulu.) I don't find anything else about him. The article claims that he was written up in WSJ, but a search there turns up zero. LaMona (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can't find anything to show that this author is notable and I can't find any mention of him in the WSJ. It's most likely that he was only briefly mentioned or quoted in relation to an overall topic, which is quite normal - a news source will discuss a specific topic and bring in someone to provide commentary, usually by way of one of several people quoted on whatever the subject is. However even if it was a book review or something very in-depth, this one source would not be enough to keep the article. I searched using Google, Highbeam, my school's database, and Bing, but found nothing usable. The only thing I found was this article which is just a repost of a tweet about Dennis Quaid - far from a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, search brings up nothing useable, I did find one WSJ article (Hooray!!:)) here [18], where he is briefly interviewed about hiring techniques, hardly notable.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson N. Mwaura[edit]

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

Questionably notable as my thorough searches found nothing good so unless there are some Kenyan sources I'm missing, there's nothing to suggest improving and keeping. Pinging past user Good Olfactory. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected Parliamentary candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was pinged as a previous editor, but admittedly I know little about the person or the sources. Doesn't look terribly notable to me, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Being a diplomat to one UNO conference is hardly enough for notability and the rest is certainly not. I suspect that the article was created because he was a prominent member of LDS in a country where LDS is not a large religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 10 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. Article's not perfect but as proven by NA1000 notability's there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nehemiah Corporation of America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating again as the current article is speedy & PROD material and my searches found nothing better than this, this, this and this so it would be nice to have another consensus after 2008 especially because this was extensively edited but subsequently removed in December 2009 (not to mention this has existed since November 2005). Pinging past nominator Jayron32 and also notifying John Quiggin and Epicgenius. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. Passes WP:ORGDEPTH, as per news and book sources, some of which include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Userfy. This case is interesting. As it stands, the article is under-sourced and overly promotional in tone, but sourcing and clean-up are not the real problems here. There is a reason why the organization's web site hasn't been updated since 2010 -- its primary activity was effectively shut down by the (US) federal government via regulations and changes in law. The mortgage down payment 'gifts' that the subject organization provided to homebuyers came from the sellers of those homes, who then received their 'donations' back as part of the purchase price (minus a fee that was collected by the subject organization). More detail on the process can be found at [19] and [20]. According my initial reading of the sources, the subject organization was the first to develop this arrangement (though it appears to have been quickly copied by others). All in all, what we have here is an organization that is quite notable, but whose article is silent about its chief claim to notability.
Because I find this interesting, I volunteer to userfy this article. I've never done this before, but my understanding is that there needs to be a consensus here to permit this to happen. I expect that I could get the article back to main space in about a month. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs work but NorthAmerica's sources are compelling. I don't think it really needs to be userfied, but NewYorkActuary can certainly work on it in the mainspace. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative design[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay written by a group of students (see talk page). Proposed for deletion as original research, which has been removed by the article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the initial PRODer and since Mike Rosoft edit conflicted me bringing it to AfD. Original research, personal essay that has no salvageable content from which an encyclopedia article could be built. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also "Hi We are a bunch of students" — shared accounts are not permitted, and given the removal of the prod, we might expect some SPA comments. "would improvise the article" pretty well confirms OR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely and draft and userfy if needed as the only links I found were some at Books but nothing else aside from that. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dobbie[edit]

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

Longstanding Wikipedia article about an occasional BBC news presenter (it came to light after another editor nom'd Babita Sharma for deletion). This suggests it may have been written by an agent or someone close to Dobbi - at the moment (and throughout the last 9 years) it's been effectively an unsourced CV. It even seems to have been edited by Dobbie himself. I very vaguely recognise the name and, searching online, I can find this 2014 coverage about a complaining email he sent (even if we treated this coverage as 'significant' it would fall into WP:ONEEVENT). Fails WP GNG. Sionk (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking back on this nearly ten years after I started the article, I agree he is not particularly notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. No offence Peter. Cloudbound (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although News, Books, browser and Highbeam all found links, there's nothing to suggest better sourcing and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 10 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. Not much discussion, but the deletion proposal remains in substance unopposed, so this is deleted until somebody finds reliable sources that could serve as the basis for a recreation. Sandstein 09:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Rimlyanin[edit]

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

Not only is this one unsourced, looking at the Malagasy article (which is one of the worst articles I've seen) shows almost basically nothing and only has a plain freebase.com link and it seemed to have been started by a bot in February. My searches also found absolutely nothing aside from this which has a photo. Granted this is a Russian 14th century subject so I imagine any good sources aren't easily available but I simply no signs of improvement here and this has stayed the same since starting in October 2007. Pinging author KNewman. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The source found by User:SwisterTwister|SwisterTwister]] is an obvious WP mirror, with an irrelevant photo of some one from the Soviet era, clearly about 600 years after the time of the subject. His calim to fame is casting a bell. If the bell survives, I would have expected an inscription on the bell to be a source, but apparently none do. All we have are chronicles that I do not have access to. "the Roman" might indicate that he came from Byzantium, where the people called themselves Romanoi -Romans, which might just be credible. However, the whole article seems based on brief allusion in chronicles, padded out with interpretive matter. The chances are that nothing else is known or knowable. If someone can provide source citations, I would be willing to keep this, but until we get something I have to suspend judgment. It may be significant that there seems to be no equivalent article in the Russian WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to be notable (for example, mentioned in the book by Sergey Solovyov, the mainstream text on the history of Russia, here. However, the text of the article seems to be a translation of this webpage, which is apparently copyrighted. Let us wait for the explanations of the creator of the article (who seems to be inactive though). It might be possible to rephrase though, I am in doubt as what to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation, no prejudice against renomination in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lawson (album)[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable album: given it's title not worth converting to a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is indisputable that Jamie Lawson is to be considered a 'notable musician'. This article does meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, as all 5 entries on the list can be checked. This article currently includes more than just a basic track listing, with charting information and other release information to be added after the release date of October 9 2015.

HeyJude70 (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now because News found a few links and I would've honestly suggested redirecting to the artist regardless of the title as it may still be applicable. I suggest maybe keeping because it hasn't been released yet so... SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisburg High School Shooting[edit]

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

This is not a very notable event. The only casualty was the principal, who was shot and injured in the arm. Just one of those minor school shootings with only one target in mind and nothing else. Versus001 (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No fatalities, only a flesh wound. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable event. Could be worth a small mention on an article about the school if anybody wants to make one. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if needed, this can be mentioned at Harrisburg's article. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for multiple news articles. CFCF 💌 📧 22:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to iPhone. As a possible misspelling or typo. But that redirect target may be changed editorially, and further discussions should determine whether to merge any of this content anywhere. The only consensus that can be gathered here is that this should not remain a separate article. Sandstein 09:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPhony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I simply see no better notability and improvement aside from being a 2007 controversy involving Apple and I'm not even sure if this is notable enough to be mentioned elsewhere such as Apple or Apple controversies. My searches found some links but obviously nothing better here and here (this last one seems to be something else as this 2007 iPhony no longer seems to be active hence the outdated tag). Pinging recent editor Dialectric and the only still fully active user from the first AfD DGG as well as author Ju66l3r. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & merge somewhere The software is for an obsolete system, which is not a reason for deletion, but was never really notable in its own right, though there were some significant comments such as medialooper [21] & techmeme [22] . It's a minor offshoot of the Apple-Palm patent battle described in engadget [23] and elsewhere; I think it ended with a licensing arrangement--see CNN [24]. The term has also been used in several other meanings, which , as SwisterTwister noted, makes the search quite tedious. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input--and we can't merge this unless we have a target. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and create a list somewhere At this point it seems almost impossible for this article to be notable, seeing as HP snapped up Palm years ago and nothing has been heard of it or any of the tricks and hacks, however it could be preserved in a list alongside other 3rd party software and hacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasstar1 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to iPhone#iPhony: not very famous. 333 -blue 07:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Somewhere. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (face) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petey and Jaydee[edit]

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

There's no evidence to suggest this is still active and the new external link is now closed and my own searches only found a few links here and nothing good, thus with no signs of improvement and existing like this since February 2007, there's nothing to suggest keeping. Pinging past editor Dl2000. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous primary, www.momentumanimationstudios.com, seems to be retrievable from archive.org e.g. [25]. Rather odd that it is difficult to find secondary coverage for a series which was apparently shown on SBS, and distributed internationally. However, it seems to have aired on G4 (TV channel) [26]. The premise and asserted distribution alone should have generated some notoriety and thus more notability coverage. Perhaps additional secondary coverage is available under news subscriptions, etc. Dl2000 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could consider merging to G4's Late Night Peepshow, the particular anthology where P&J aired on G4. Dl2000 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minister Jade[edit]

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

This seems to have been a one-time event coverage and there's not much information about this and my searches found no better links than this. With the article an orphan and no current article for Steve Bialik, there's not much to suggest improvement and keeping and this has existed staying the same since February 2009. Notifying author JigsyQ. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll do some cleanup and make this into a page about the comic rather than the character, because if it's going to be kept it'll be for the book's notability and not the individual character. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After Tokyogirl79's edits, it looks like it's worth keeping. If it ends up sticking around, I'll de-orphan it. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. I'm going to go ahead and close this one myself despite participating earlier. This is a clear hoax so there's really not much point in dragging this one out for a full week, especially after it's already been tagged. I'm moving this to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/La Croix du Sanguine Rouge since it's been here since 2010. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La Croix du Sanguine Rouge[edit]

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

Nothing has been found that verifies this novel's existence. Correct me if I'm wrong. TheGGoose (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/move to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. I can find absolutely nothing to substantiate that this book ever existed. A search for the title in French and English only brings up references to this Wikipedia article. I'd be willing to chalk this up to it being a pre-Internet released book, except that the article asserts that the book gained more attention after the author's death. Even if this was a low profile book, there should be something out there for this work - even if it's just a routine listing. A search for the author's name with the title of his other book Marie also brings up nothing, which is troubling considering that this book was supposed to be far more popular. This gives off the impression that this book and its author either never existed or this was an indie book that was stocked in a handful of specialty stores. I'm leaning more towards hoax at this point given the lack of non-Wikipedia mentions on the Internet and zero hits for the author or either book on WorldCat. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been around since 2010, this could be archived as a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This unreferenced article is almost certainly a hoax. Nothing available through various Google searches shows anything other than content copied from Wikipedia. The editor who created the article five years ago made only two edits creating this article, and then disappeared. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as there's simply nothing to suggest better and I have tagged it as G3 (as there's simply nothing to suggest keeping). SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and delete/move this to the hoaxspace. I generally like to archive stuff like this for the fun of it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wijnen[edit]

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

Fails notability The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:SOLDIER as a general officer in the Dutch armed forces. A Google News search shows several Dutch and German language newspaper articles about him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per Cullen, plenty of news items about him to meet GNG, he is also not only a one-star, but he has commanded a mechanised brigade. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely and I was going to this as such and I found news links but I'll see if there are any other comments. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a general officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this, like Highbeam, is considered notable and acceptable so the consensus will much likely be keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NewsBank[edit]

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

A prior version of this article was deleted after a WP:PROD. I haven't seen the prior version of the article, so naturally the version I created, from scratch, uses completely different material. So far the article I've created incorporates cited material from sixteen (16) WP:RS sources. I've demonstrated both a History of the company from approximately 1973 to 2014, as well as a bit about Reception of the company -- primarily as given in comments from authors of books about reference works and library guides. As there was the prior deletion after the WP:PROD, bringing here to AFD to assess from the community whether we should bother to continue to perform quality improvement efforts on this article. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cirt has done an excellent job rebuilding an article about this notable topic. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable now, but then it was pretty obvious it was a notable topic before IMHO, though the prior article was poorly sourced. I could scarcely believe it when I saw this page had been deleted. I don't have time to monitor my Watchlist as closely as I once did (and certainly don't have time to recreate the page, so my thanks to Cirt) — maybe a case for PRODs and other deletion notices to be highlighted in some way on the Watchlist? Or even an option 'email me if a page on my Watchlist is up for deletion?' Qwfp (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bit of a no-brainer. Clearly a notable topic, and clearly a well-written and well-referenced article. GrindtXX (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources in the article amply show that the organization is significant and notable per WP:ORG. NewsBank provides a national-level news database used by libraries and news organizations. I had removed the notability tag a few days before the PROD, and it was lost in my watchlist for me as well. An improved watchlist function is definitely an idea worth exploring. Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ABB Merchant Banking (Asia Business Builders)[edit]

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

The reference stating newyorktimes is not related to newyorktimes. The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following: 1) The reference and link to New York Times article was corrected and now pointing correctly to the article in which ABB Merchant Banking's research on the property market is quoted. 2) Additional edits to reflect the specific notability of the firm have been added: one of the first boutiques to exist in the communist country/early mover impact on the M&A market in the country. [User talk: peter_hecham 3 October 2015] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter hecham@yahoo.dk (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources available don't move beyond brief mentions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely as I haven't began looking at this closely but there's nothing to suggest better and a better article if possible can be started later. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Control of Respiration[edit]

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

While this concept is at least a bit notable, as one can see from doing some searching, this doesn't really appear to pass the bar in terms of our general notability standards. There's also the issue of this topic being easily confused with artificial respiration in the context of medicine, rather than food preparation, which isn't good for our readers. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a commercial process offered by a company called Van Amerongen. Sources affiliated with that company are not independent and do not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no references in the article. This is a particular company's implementation of a controlled atmosphere for food storage. A google search leads to this description on the company website: "The laboratory project that underlies the practice implementation of Advanced Control of Respiration (ACR), Van Amerongen's dynamic storage technology, was realized through the support of "Topsectoren" and Innovation of the province of Gelderland (Netherlands)." The only other references to the term are also associated with the company. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no better links than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some difficult to understand English and phrasing in the article, but even working through that morass, I cannot see any notability that meets WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to David Gilmour. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 0001 Strat[edit]

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

Non-notable musical instrument. To be clear, this is about a specific unit--a specific single instrument, not a model or brand. It turns out ot be David Gilmour's favorite guitar, and has had some media coverage because of that, but it's absurd to give a single instrument an article. The citations given are from fan sites and blogs, all self-published. Mikeblas (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. News produced a single hit on a small mention; Newspapers and Books returned nothing but a single brief mention in a single book. Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR returned nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to David Gilmour, which has a mention of the guitar. It's verifiable (e.g. [27], [28]), but not finding enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge obviously as there's nothing to suggest a better separate article and it's best known connected to him. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have a lot of sympathy for the view that paper documents from this era are not reliably digitised; this is the case even for Western countries, and it's something I have had personal troubles with. With that said, we cannot have an article for a living person where there are no reliable sources other than a list of films to back up their notability. My suggestion for people who want to retain this article is to go and find those paper sources that they assert should exist, go and have them digitised, and put them up somewhere so that Donato's career can be properly established per WP:V. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Donato[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 23:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Campos although delete is followed at second as my searches only found passing mentions at Books, News and browser thus noting to suggest he was a better known actor. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sparsity of modern coverage is not an indication of non-notability for an actor in the 1950s/1960s. The difficulty in finding contemporary sources for his active years is for the same reason as his brother's - Philippine print media have not been digitized by Google (or other online libraries) from that era. WP:NACTOR only requires that he have had significant roles in multiple notable films. And he passes that easily. His roles are independent of his brother's. Despite being (subjectively) the "less famous" of the two, he was in the industry longer than Campos.

Doesn't mean there aren't any evidence of his offline notability on the web. If you can get past the fact that these are posted in a blog and just look at the images, you can get an idea of his notability by the scans of old newspaper/magazine articles and movie posters of films he was involved in. These can not be used as sources, but they prove his involvement in multiple notable films: Tayo'y Magsaya (1959), Doon Po Sa Amin (1960), Naku... Yabang (1963), Emily (1960), Banal (1961), Navy Blues (1960), Mr. Announcer (1959), etc. His brother's movies are there as well (and yes, they were usually cast in different movies, not together, thus a redirect would not make sense).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sources are sparse because his heyday was in the '50s. He is still notable. My apologies in advance to RMS125 who might be offended by my voting.--Jondel (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, @Jondel. Yours, Quis separabit? 05:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did'nt mean to be funny Rms125. I have respect for you and your ideals. You seem to be offended for the wrong reasons.--Jondel (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added:*Pelikula: A Journal of Philippine Cinema--Jondel (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I try to vote keep on as many of articles on older actors as I can justify. But there is simply not enough out there to show this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. sst ✈ 01:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 01:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, does not pass WP:NACTOR. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Katebian[edit]

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

He has not played in a competitive senior game between two professional clubs nor has he represented his nation at the Olympic Games or at senior level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, he's the subject of this article in the Herald Sun, but WP:GNG requires multiple such sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 16:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Can be recreated if and when he plays professionally. Spiderone 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - presently fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Article can be recreated if he sets foot on the pitch in an A-League match or for the Aussie national team. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - I note that in this recent AFD discussion the result was "keep" in basically the same circumstances; namely a player who had appeared in one Cup match ~~between two A-League teams~~. I also note that on that occasion, GiantSnowman was one to vote keep. Is there a difference this time? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Joey played in the cup against a semi pro state league club whereas as Jacob appeared in a cup match between two fully professional A-League sides. Simione001 (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for pointing that out Simione001. I have amended my comment above for accuracy's sake. Perhaps Victoryboy would like it moved to his userspace in case Katebian makes an appearance in the near future? A bit of effort has been put into creating the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jay Berman[edit]

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

puff piece almost certainly written by publicist. Lots of quotes from this guy here and there and references from organizations he's worked with, but no in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. There was some subterfuge by the article writer disguising the "daily journal" that his company published as "California's Daily Journal" including typeface making it look like a real third-party publication. The Dissident Aggressor 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not notable. The biggest hint is the article includes a link to his CV. Searches on News provided 2 passing mentions and a PR; Newspapers and JSTOR returned nada; Highbeam and Scholar also returned some brief mentions. The best results were returned at Books, but nothing to show he comes close to meeting notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contrary to what Onel5969 says, resumes or cvs can be useful as sources, to fill out the factual details of the life of a subject whose notability is shown by other sources. But in this case, we don't have other sources that actually demonstrate notability, and the article is very promotionally written. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found some links at Books, browser and Highbeam but there's not enough for a better article but feel free to draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oklahoma City Zoo and Botanical Garden. If there's anything that an editor thinks is appropriate in the target article, probably not more than a line, then feel free to mention it. However, if this merge isn't preformed in a timely manner any editor should assume that nobody wishes to move any material, and should go ahead and create a redirect without moving any content.

On that note, User:DN-boards1, feel free to make a copy in your userspace, if you want to. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malee (elephant)[edit]

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

Article on recently deceased elephant belonging to zoo that while being reported media-wide probably doesn't have enough RS coverage to justify an article and may be TOO SOON. I have some doubts but it's probably best to discuss here. 177.142.118.61 (talk)

Malee was always known. She was always in the local news every birthday. They built a giant pagoda-type habitat just because of her. There was a lot of coverage throughout her life, she's certainly notable. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable: As per WP:N, a subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Reliable sources should, ideally, be "secondary". The only sources cited, here, are from the Oklahoma Zoo where the elephant once lived. There are a few newspaper articles about the animal's death. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually indeed had coverage outside of the Zoo. DN-boards1 (talk) 00:18, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject fails WP:GNG. Coverage is extremely thin, mostly consisting of press releases from the zoo and some purely run of the mill local pieces. There is nothing that indicates why this elephant is different from all of the others in zoos. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editor. Searches revealed nothing to show that this particular elephant meets notability criteria. Ad Orientem's analysis seems pretty spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original speedy-tagger. All coverage appears to purely run-of-the-mill. --Finngall ^talk 21:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I recall correctly, Malee was the first elephant born in Oklahoma. At the very least, we should userfy it. DN-boards1 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember "first born in Oklahoma" in the guidelines for establishing notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy I suppose if it helps the author and there's not much for a better separate article and I'm not seeing this being merged and mentioned at the zoo's article as there are likely several other elephants at the zoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect what content can be salvaged to Oklahoma City Zoo and Botanical Garden, if there is no consensus against it at the article. Otherwise delete. HighInBC 05:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Oklahoma City Zoo and Botanical Garden per HighInBC. No indication of passing WP:GNG. If DN-boards1 would still like a user space draft, the current content can be userfied. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as G10 negative BLP (non-admin closure) Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Howard Klar[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 00:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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