< 7 October	9 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of White Male Authors with Critically Acclaimed Novels Over 500 Pages[edit]

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

not a notable union of two topics. Seems like someone is trying to prove a point or right a wrong they see in the world. Also a coatrack of sorts --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of WP:LISTN, i.e. that "White Male Authors with Critically Acclaimed Novels Over 500 Pages" is a group or set that is notable (or even defined), saying nothing about the notability of each author and their books. There are several forms of arbitrary selection criteria: race, gender, genre, page count, and the unclear criterion of "Critically Acclaimed" (just how many critics must acclaim a book for its inclusion? How many and which awards must it win?) I believe this is an example of Listcruft, a list for the sake of making a list. But Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely related topics. Why not novels over 400 pages? None of the sources in the introductory paragraphs mention an arbitrary cut off of 500 pages (or any from what I can tell), some touch on books about women rather than by men (or women), and while the subject of sexual inequality in publishing is a noteworthy, this is not the way to address it. Is the reader supposed to compare this list to some similar list of white female authors whose books have equal or greater page lengths? Women authors in general? Altogether this seems like raw data assembled to support a point of view, but not appropriate as a list in an encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as there are 70 items on this list, which is not complete, this is not a nominal subject. The article does not discuss the merit of the books--many I enjoy and think are deserving of their acclaim--and is merely a compilation that proves a phenomenon that, as the introduction shows, has been observed and cited numerous times^[1]^[2]^[3]. Research from VIDA especially supports the claims regarding gender imbalance in literary criticism. The article does not pose that the information is "right or wrong," but simply lists books in this criteria. Any subjective comment is in quotes, putting it in the words of the original speaker, and not the author of the article. If those comments are what invalidates this article, they can be removed. If a user wants to make a list of critically acclaimed works above 500 pages by minorities, they are free to do so. With both commentators posting within minutes of each other, I see this argument of deletion to not be in good faith, but a premeditated, organized effort to remove the page. rreizman (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more a discussion of whether this article complies with policy and what an encyclopedia is for, and is not an attack on you personally. I noticed this was nominated for deletion because the article was on my watchlist, no premeditation or conspiracy involved. This list, regardless of the prose, says nothing about gender imbalance in literary criticism, as it includes no other genders. Wikipedia is not a place for proving things or tracking trends, per the policy on No original research. Appropriate topics for lists tend to be elements that form a natural set, or have some commonality for which they are widely recognized and discussed (cities in a state, alumni from a university, horror writers, etc.). The focal listed elements generally (but not always) have a notable topic article (e.g. List of Nobel laureates in Literature derives logically from Nobel Prize in Literature). There is no article on White male authors, nor Books over 500 pages, thus the intersection of the two needs stronger evidence that it is considered a notable subject. Even if the article gender imbalance in literary criticism were created, this list would not logically accompany it. Note we have many lists of writers, and lists of books but the scope of the lists are unambiguous, and involve no arbitrary thresholds or subjective definitions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If articles relating to this phenomena don't exist, it doesn't mean it's not happening, and it would be against the rules of wikipedia for me to make original articles listing white male authors or 500 page novels just for the sake of having this list put up. The long novel has been widely acknowledged and meditated upon by various critics^[4]^[5]^[6], and there is an article that lists the longest novels ever written. As gender studies is a legitimate field, observing gender imbalance in conjunction with novel length, and its correlation to literary merit, is worthy of a list on wikipedia. Again, because there are 70 entries, these books are not outliers. In reference to original research, I can remove the majority of the exposition at the beginning of the article, which was only placed there to reinforce credibility that this list has value. rreizman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for (a) being too arbitrarily specific (why 500?) and thus failing WP:SALAT and (b) having vague criteria ("critically acclaimed" and "contemporary"). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria for critically acclaimed and contemporary is now defined: consideration for prestigious literary prizes and inclusion on aggregation of greatest books of all time lists. Contemporary is implied, as these prizes did not exist before the 20th century. rreizman (talk)
Delete I'm not seeing how a list with such arbitrary criteria could ever meet list notability guidelines, as stated above. It would seem to be a pretty useless union of data.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the comments under the previous two contestations for explanations regarding "arbitrary" criteria. As already explained, there are enough titles, articles and awards cited to prove this is visible trend in literary fiction. rreizman (talk)
  - rreizman I still must disagree. Certainly, the awards as they pertain to the authors are notable, but nothing about the authors or the awards connects them in a way that would make this list proper. EricEnfermero makes an excellent point that the users as a group should also merit inclusion. While I have invoked the idea that "if this page goes, lots of others will too" (WP:ALLORNOTHING), I couldn't honestly suggest it here, since the authors and awards are notable in ways that have nothing to do with the author's race or gender. This is a trend in literary fiction to the extent that a list of notable white, male billionaires in the Unites States or notable while male colonists of the 17th century would represent a trend. In fact, I might go so far as to say that lists of this nature represent an implied editorializing (WP is not a soapbox).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also support lists of notable white, male billionaires in the US or white male colonists in the 17th century. Those are cohesive lists united by the same criteria, of people within the same demographic. We have List of female Nobel laureates, so why not critically acclaimed white male authors? There are also: List of women writers, List of female sculptors, List of female mathematicians, List of female film actors, etc. With this consideration, your objection to a list of men does not make any sense. The list is much stronger without the exposition, which I would like to delete, but as multiple people are complaining about sources cited it seems that it was necessary to add. Rreizman (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have List of women in mathematics, not List of women in mathematics who wrote more than 5 books on linear algebra in the 20th century. It is your hand-selected arbitrary selection of authors that is problematic, as there is no indication that these exact 70+ authors are what literary scholars are referring to. You are in one list conflating legitimate but separate issues of length, gender, and ethnicity. Even the five criteria for "critical acclaim" exclude other sources of acclaim: see just British literary awards and American literary awards for more cherry-picking potential from the lengthy list of literary awards. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, then the list continues to include from the lengthy list of literary awards and grows even longer. I am not opposed to continuing to add to the list if that makes it less arbitrary, though I will point out that the level of prestige of awards is not applicable to all the ones listed on wikipedia. An Oscar or Golden Globe is far more respected than a Satellite Award, and not many would debate that. The citations referring to lengthy novels are mostly discussing work from white male authors, making it a notable distinction. There is no commentary on whether this ought to be the case or not, similarly to the Female Nobel Laureates pointing out a gender gap, but not more than that. This list is not as specific as your hyperbolic example, and the genre of Literary fiction could arguably be removed because a few Westerns have been awarded these prizes, though novels are often cross-genre. The length begins at a word count exceeding the categorization of epics, and the article can be revised to reflect word count instead of page numbers, which is a more accurate representation of length and what I should have used to start with (my bad on that.) --Rreizman (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having read all of the previous comments, I can understand that a number of notable people belong to this group, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether an article on the group as a whole would pass our notability criteria. No reliable sources are discussing this group of authors. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The entries come directly from lists for the Pulitzer, National Book Award, National Critics Circle Award, the Man Booker Prize and the aggregated list of 100 Greatest Novels. The citations will be updated soon, but if these awards are not credible sources, then the wikipedia articles on them should be taken down as well. rreizman (talk)
  - The entries aren't the problem. The article has been nominated for deletion; the entries on the list are not up for deletion. Those sources you list don't characterize your group in terms of gender, race or the other characteristics suggested by the title. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - When Female nobel prize laureates or List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees are announced, the organizations makes no distinction of gender. The identity of these individuals is public information, and unless they went on record as identifying as another race or gender, that information appears to be useable on wikipedia lists. --Rreizman (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't have an opinion on the notability of those non-AFD-nominated entries, but the existence of other articles shouldn't be used as a rationale for keeping an AFD-nominated article (or as a rationale for badgering the heck out of AFD participants). EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I am responding to your comments, not badgering. I do not see any reason why public information on the authors cannot be used for a list, when it is common practice on wikipedia. I have explained why I believe the demographic of authors is notable, and you have not provided any reasoning as to why it is not.--Rreizman (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with others that we are dealing with a list with several arbitrarily chosen criteria – regardless of how precisely Rreizman defines them, the choice of those definitions is still arbitrary. The article which wanders towards coatrack territory; I wouldn't be averse to the coat having its own article, but the coatrack can't be salvaged. Aspirex (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While there are not yet articles for the subject, there are categories for male authors by nationality, and Winners/Nominees/Finalists for the literary awards mentioned in the article, as well as an article list of longest novels. There is a natural intersection of the subjects. As suggested, others are welcome to make lists of critically acclaimed long novels from minority authors. The list is focused on the "coat" and uses objective data in its introduction to explain why this is not arbitrary criteria, as there is argument for deletion. It can be removed. rreizman (talk)

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, having read the above, both deleters and supporters of this article have given examples of other lists, confusing the issue with the What about X argument. But does this article meet WP:NLIST? ie. "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", has it? Also, no. 6 of WP:NOTDIR - "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." is it? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Thank you for the excellent point about number 6 of WP:NOTDIR. I think that really cuts through a lot of the involved discussion we've had here to a simple criterion to judge.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reading over notability for lists, there is no consensus of guidelines for lists of X and y, which I think this list is. Plus I don't see original research from the creator of the page... the statements seem sourced ok. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the list would be stronger if there were more RS for the opening paragraph that supports the list. Something peer reviewed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That there is not consensus for precise guidelines for lists of x and y does not mean that any list of x and y is an appropriate topic for a list. The original research is what's required the purport a valid topic here, synthesizing the various otherwise notable/sourced components. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is this intended as some sort of joke? perhaps a satire of unnecessary lists on Wikipedia?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POINT, WP:LIST, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SNOW. This has to be the ultimate synthetic list. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the long and detailed name suggests not many would suggest this although how detailed it is so far. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 14 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 will userfy if requested. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi M.G. Parameswaran[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG. Also, I did not find him notable per notability criteria for academics. Mhhossein (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but draft & userfy if needed as my searches found links at News, Books, browser, Scholar and Highbeam and considering this may have potential and better improvement later, the author may be able to work with this by draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 17:13, 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 speedy delete. advertisement, non-notable self-promoting vanity page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin R Singer Canadian Immigration Lawyer[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 23:21, 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) 00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Passage[edit]

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

There are some articles about the technique (even some that were not written by the owners), but there's very, very little information about the business. I believe therefore that the business does not meet WP:CORP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches were symmetrical as well at News, Books, browser and Highbeam and thus nothing for better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and thank you to SwisterTwister for doing the due diligence here. — Cirt (talk) 12:55, 12 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) 02:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beans Balawi[edit]

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

Child actor who has had no major roles, zero Google News hits, and very little in the away of hits that isn't IMDb (which is pretty bare anyway) or other unreliable sources. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a few news hits but they just appear to be name drops, nothing significant. This, this, and this (non english). -- Kethrus |talk to me 20:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 20:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 20:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Roles are minor and no sign of notability per WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. Dismas|^(talk) 20:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another article that would hardly be missed and with no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. CoronaryKea (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 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 seems obvious so far (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Zappa[edit]

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

Classic WP:NOTINHERITED. Only known as the wife of Frank Zappa. No individual notability, and almost no biographical data, either. MSJapan (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in her own right, as the custodian of Zappa's legacy, as a personality in the late-60s counterculture, and as a notably litigious businesswoman. International notability demonstrated by the obituaries published - The Guardian (UK), Rolling Stone, Radio Canada, this Polish site, this Italian site, this German site, this Dutch site, etc. - and even populist tabloid media like this. Bear in mind that, like him or not, Zappa was an internationally important musical and cultural figure, of a status where it is normal for close associates to have separate articles - and she was patently not "just" a wife. "Almost no biographical data" about Gail Zappa is demonstrably untrue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ghmyrtle has stated the case well. She has been an independently notable figure for some time now. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appeared on several recordings of several musical artists; significant voice in the discussion of artists rights management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.148.123 (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After Zappa's death she was more or less his most notable spokesperson, public promotor of his work, protector of his copyright and frequently made headlines regarding new Zappa releases and/or copyright controversies. - User:Knudde Kjell 4:00, 9 October 2015 (CET).
Keep. Sources provided by Ghmyrtle above demonstate independent notability in multiple areas. The article undoubtedly needs improvement, but this is a seperate issue. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you are "ONLY NOTABLE" for being married to someone that means that you ARE in fact NOTABLE!! Arcanicus (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is independently notable per the sources provided by Ghmyrtle. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NYT obituary called her the "keeper of a legacy". That's per her notability. Nice and very informative obituary by the way. I liked the part about a "profanity-based letter" that she wrote to Steve Jobs about iTunes. Very sad that they both died from cancer, so, RIP Frank and Gail! Best to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.175.53.166 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWere that all discussions of this sort @ Wikipedia so filled with fact based, logical expositions. Tapered (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For notability, see all over the press. - DVdm (talk) 09:21, 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 the listed reviews seem acceptable enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slime Season[edit]

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

Article includes zero sources whatsoever, lacks notability, is missing proper tables, and has no information on the mixtape other than basic info you could find on a download page. Funkatastic (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM due to reviews in Pitchfork, Exclaim, and Consequence of Sound. [1] [2] [3] Everymorning (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baiju Senadhipan[edit]

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

Sources are WP:PRIMARY, and the only apparent claim of significance ("First Surgeon in India to perform Laparoscopic Coloplasty for Benign Oesophageal Stricture") is unsourced and it's not clear how significant it actually was. McGeddon (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't have adequate sources to demonstrate notability when using WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Current sources include a newspaper article published by the Hindu, but it is one that the subject of the article himself authored and a journal article, again authored by the subject of the article himself. Currently I can't see that there is sufficient coverage by reliable sources. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 14 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) 02:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valeir Académie of Économie and Political Thought[edit]

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

Most likely a hoax, in any case does not meet notability guidelines Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better thanthis (what seem to be primary links) and in any case this would be a WP:TNT and restarted better if it exists. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And even what you found contains several sites that are a Danish language translations with names replaced of a Swiss business school site for a supposedly Dutch school (see my comment of the Valeir Academy talk page) Arnoutf (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strange indeed. Regardless of whether it's a hoax or not, there's not enough verifiable information to write an article (let alone demonstrate WP:N. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 12 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. Without prejudice against an article about HuffPost Live Conversations itself if that is a notable topic. Sandstein 10:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of HuffPost Live Conversations episodes[edit]

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

Delete or repurpose as an article for the show. Fuddle (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete or make an article for the show if that can happen. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 19:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see the notability of this topic. One of the standards is that the topic of the list is notable and has its own article. Which this does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 16 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Millersport High School[edit]

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

Not notable Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per school outcomes and longstanding practice that all high schools are notable. John from Idegon (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the long standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's my guess that the nominator isn't aware of this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 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. Sandstein 10:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Society for Continental Philosophy[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Search on News returned a couple of trivial mentions. Some more mentions on books and scholar, but all of a trivial nature. Nothing on the other engines. No in-depth coverage at all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete coverage is extremely limited. I only found hits confirming people were members of the society, but nothing indepth about the society. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 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! 23:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably real, but a complete lack of any reliable secondary materials means we can't write a quality article about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage to pass WP:ORG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found some links at Books, News and browser but a better article can be made later. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while in fact most occurances in print of the society's name are mere mentions, those editors who indicated that it had no substantive coverage in secondary sources missed a fair number of book sources. For example to list three I found within the first twenty Google book hits (there were 506 hits listed): The page+ (pp. 162–164) in Graham Oppy's book The Antipodean Philosopher: Public Lectures on Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand, which discussed not only the society's antecedents, and its founding but also the importance of a number of the articles published by it. The introduction to Trauma, History, Philosophy (2009) discusses the 2006 conference of the society in detail, which is quite proper as the book is a compilation, under the editorial oversight of Cambridge Scholars Publishing, of papers presented there. The society is also covered in a full paragraph (page 326, note 32), not just a passing mention, in Judith Butler's and Rosi Braidotti's "Out of Bounds: Philosophy in an Age of Transition" in Rosi Braidotti's After Poststructuralism: Transitions and Transformations. The society certainy verifies, and has substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. Whether that coverage is significant is a judgment call. I come down on the side of yes. Graham Oppy's book also shows the significance of the society in the field of endeavor, and as the related guideline (WP:NJOURNAL) says: is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ASCP appears to have a significant ongoing presence in the university sector and the article could be greatly lengthened from this publication amongst others. Ljgua124 (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Public image of Narendra Modi. (non-admin closure) Yash! 08:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of slogans by Narendra Modi[edit]

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

Trivia. Politicians make soundbites but we are not a dictionary of quotations. If any of these end up having lasting impact then they should be mentioned in the main biographical article at an appropriate time. Sitush (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Public image of Narendra Modi per DD. Per nom. We can't make a list of everything that a person has said. If there are scholarly or other reliable secondary sources that attest to the importance of something said by Modi, then that should be included in the main article. --regentspark (comment) 19:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narendra Modi. The sources here show that his slogans are a big part of his image/style. Borock (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soundbites are a big part of every successful politician's armoury. Few of them are of lasting significance. I've not checked our articles but Margaret Thatcher's "U-turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" and various examples from Churchill are notable examples of those that probably have enduring and widespread fame. I am not aware of any such things relating to Modi and I'm not even sure that the sources given in the article are really in a position (recentism) to discuss the significance. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Public image of Narendra Modi. A separate article is not needed now. But few lines in his image article are fine. The list currently uses many references which dominantly talk about his slogans and not mention them in passing. Yes this is recentism and it might not last a few decades later and that's why proposing merger. A para in his image article would improve that article too. Similarly would also support merging Ek Bharat Shrestha Bharat and Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Agree with general observation of the nominator that politicians make soundbites. Specifically here it is misplaced. I see the article is referenced and several secondary sources publishing articles specifically on his slogans. I am not sure, but a reasonable guess would be that you can't find a similar case for any other politician which indicates that this is not trivia. Soundbites are usually provocative or mischievous, slogans is not exactly that, and none of the listed slogans are. And it is obviously not a list of everything that the person said, that should not be done. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not about soundbytes or quotes. It's about slogans and is properly sourced. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 10:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge An article of this kind is not encyclopaedic. I favour Dharmadhyaksha's suggestion of merging it into the Public image of Narendra Modi. Notable slogans might also be mentioned in Narendra Modi if need be. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Usually in such AfDs editors follow philosophy of WP:IDLI, "I Love Modi" Vs "I Hate Modi" battle. I think slogans have been integral part of Modi's image since he was CM of Gujarat, he used some terms like Vibrant Gujarat in those days and later used many during election campaign for PM and after that. Today these slogans have became matter of criticism of Modi. So, as Kautilya3 and Borock have mentioned some of these slogans can become the part of parent article Narendra Modi and we can merge this article to Public image of Narendra Modi. --Human3015^TALK 20:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public image of Narendra Modi. The fact that even individual slogans like Ek Bharat Shrestha Bharat have articles suggests that some people are placing inordinate importance in Modi's less notable actions. The better place for this list might even be at Wikiquote. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Public image of Narendra Modi" although I have doubts about the encyclopedic nature of that article, too. The list as it stands only contains trivia, none of which have been demonstrated to have lasting notability. Even if they do, Wikiquotes is the place for them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. To the main Modi article. I have nominated the public image article as that too is not encyclopedic in nature. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that these things are non-encyclopedic then why you even want to merge it in main Modi article? You are contradicting yourself. Not everything can be merged to main article of Modi. This list is suitable to merge in Public image of Narendra Modi article. --Human3015^TALK 04:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that there is a Modi cult on Wikipedia, spawning unnecessary articles. Some should be deleted, some should be merged. I've always thought it a shame that AfD doesn't allow someone actually to nominate a merge rather than a deletion. - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a WP:MERGE to nominate a merge. Its just that merger discussions don't get enough audience and is not time-bound with relisting and admins waiting to close old ones. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:47, 13 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 as I was going to vote but this seems obvious and the past history is still available if anyone wants to improve it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Forensic Files of Batman[edit]

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

Obscure piece of superhero fiction; neither evidence nor assertion of notability, completely unsourced. Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The publisher, IBooks, seems to be a do-it-yourself publishing company. The whole thing falls far short of WP's notability standards. Borock (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. IBooks is an application by Apple, but still an outlet for self-publishing it seems.Borock (talk)

Redirect to Doug_Moench#Non-comics_bibliography_.28selected.29. The author is notable and it's mentioned in his bibliography, so a redirect there would be reasonable. But as a standalone, no - I can't find any coverage for this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When one sees a grand total of 99 G-hits, one knows there are sourcing issues. A couple blog-based reviews, perhaps, but nothing counting towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:20, 13 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 G11 and G12. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Zerenner[edit]

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

Promotional article written by single-purpose account fails WP:NAUTHOR, sources are primary or self-published. Vrac (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like it's at least partial copyvio from this source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And from here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to just speedy this as a very unambiguous promotional article containing copyright infringment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack the Hare and Mukuyu Forest[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, a search brings up nothing useable, article references show book exists that is all (have been unable to confirm amazon reviews). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This exists and can be purchased, but that in and of itself isn't something that would give notability. As for the reviews on Amazon, those look to be routine book blurbs. These are short statements solicited by the author or publisher with the intent to put them on the book jacket. They're rarely anything beyond 1-2 sentences and are pretty much marketing material. They've never been usable to show notability. If they were part of a longer review then we could work with that, but I found no evidence to show that these were longer than the current statements on the Amazon page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, also, Worldcat shows only three libraries having copies - [4].Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing much better here. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 14 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 10:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia Magazine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a magazine which has no reliable sources nor can I find any further claims to notability. This fails WP:GNG and I cannot find anything to help support the lower guide of WP:NMEDIA McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a single secondary source to even verify that this magazine exists, much less that it's notable. This seems like a no-brainer. Article claims it's been around since 2004; if that's true, the utter absence of coverage by any sources seems to indicate it's never going to be notable. For all we know, the entire magazine is online only; there's no sources online that I found that could confirm any of the claims made in the article about the print edition, such as circulation of 50,000, the availability on east and west coasts, and even its very existence - that info could easily all be made up out of thin air. Rockypedia (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until this can be better improved. Pinging users Huon, Maproom, Madegray and Ekips39. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they have a website, and there is a source given, but it's not great. There's also some stuff on Amazon, such as this, but that's not much of a source either, and I'm going to assume that stuff like "Tampa Mafia Magazine" is unrelated. This is a blog. This doesn't look like a great source either. I only read to the sixth page of results so there may be good sources I haven't turned up, but since that's all I've found so far my guess is that, while it pretty clearly exists, it's not notable. ekips39 ❀talk 16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than some brief mentions, can find nothing in searches to show in-depth coverage of this magazine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 16 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 10:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caidin Film Company[edit]

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

Unreferenced for more than a year doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the article nor anything I can find on searching gives indication of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now obviously as there's not much for a better article with only some links at Books and browser found. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

related alts:

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

Comment as the topic is sourcable, perhaps there is somewhere within Wikipedia where we may at least mention it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, whatever. In fact, it seems this page has became nothing more than a vandalism target by Caidin CDs. --189.25.225.218 (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per above nom and editors. Can't find anything to show it passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 16 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 10:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Display Monkey[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have met WP:GNG. Doesn't come close to WP:NSOFT (an essay). Should be deleted I guess.. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Proposed for deletion with the rationale "Searches for sources indicate that subject may not meet the inclusion criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software) or the general notability guideline." Article creator has WP:CONTESTED the Prod, but sourcing issues remain unchanged, and I find nothing that suggests this can be adequately ameliorated. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Good call Sam! Why confuse people with fringe articles like this one. The volume of articles written about Microsoft, Google and other notable software should provide more than adequate levels of knowledge. This and simliar articles just slows people down and provides alternatives that I, quite frankly, do not think the are ready for. Yes the article is neutral and objective but is it notable? I think not. On another note, is there anything else we can do to discourage people from contributing to Wikipedia other than this drawn out and inefficent deletion process? Maybe we can maintain a list of approved softwares that can be written about and submission not on the list can simply not be made. Food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKGMalmgren (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: MKGMalmgren (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Not really, to me merely a sarcastic rant. But yes, in this case the deletion process could have been shortened had article creator not contested the PROD, and it still can be shortened: article creator is the only editor with substantial contributions to the article and he could add ((Db-author)) to the top of it. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userify. My only problem here is just a lack of third-party sources. A website and Github entry just aren't going to show notability here. Now this isn't to say I endorse the sentiments in WP:NSOFT or essays like it, which in the hands of deletionists exclude most software that is not the subject of scholarly computer science work or part of a history book. I think most editors merely ask that the software be written about by independent third parties in a reasonably objective way such that Wikipedia doesn't turn into CNet (WP:NOTADIR).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question @69.204.153.39: what is the rationale for Userfication? None is given above. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: In my experience, I have noticed that many regard the various criteria (notability mostly) as some sort of platonic quality -- a universal that a topic either does or does not participate in. This almost never seems to be the case. Articles that virtually everyone (myself included) wanted gone have been turned around at the last minute by dedicated editors who go after sources. While it should never be necessary in a world in which anyone does WP:BEFORE, I've taken a few moments to search for sources for several articles under threat of deletion, and while it won't save them all, it will help some. With the state of the software guidelines/essays, the tendency of editors to AfD within moments of article creation, and the sidelining of WP:NODEADLINE, I think giving a user time to work on something is beneficial, especially considering this editor got a whopping 19 minutes to work on his article before it got nuked from orbit.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@69.204.153.39: Userfication is a possibility when an article has potential. That is not the case here. Created by the company co-founder Michael Malmgren it's yet another attempt to promote a new product. Prove me wrong, add a single reliable source that speaks in detail about this product. I'm all for retaining articles if they are neutral and subject just accurately meets GNG. Display Monkey does not, and is the archetypical example of a product "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and would be an A7 candidate if software was not excluded from the criteria. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: There must be a dimension of this request that I'm not aware of then, and I'm not looking to wade into an existing quarrel. None of what you're talking about was obvious from a visit to the site or a web search, but I have no reason to disbelieve what you say. However, with open-source(ish) software, as with all things, we should try to assume good faith (WP:AGF). The one thing I have learned in a short time in AfD is that there is generally no evidence short of a mention in Gibbon's Rise and Fall that's going to save an article folks want gone, so I'll forego the researches I've tried in the past. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So much more peculiar it is that userfication is suggested. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to show it passes the notability criteria in any of the searches. Sam Sailor's analysis is spot on for why it shouldn't be userfied. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 16 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 is more or less to keep both. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Liddell[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

These people may have won awards for their musicianship and played in award-winning bands, but at the end of the day they're just good amateur musicians. I do not believe they meet WP:GNG in any way. Their awards are not significant enough for WP:ANYBIO. Even professional (generally military) pipe majors and drummers would not generally be notable, let alone leaders of amateur bands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for Stuart Liddell- he has twice been awarded the prize for piping that is regarded as solo world champion in 2009 and again in 2014. The article itself needs a bit of updating and tidying, for example these reliable sources were not included in the article prior to this AfD nomination. However, the awards alone mean that Liddell can be seen to easily be passing WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twice world champion recorded in reliable publications. Edit for clarity - my comment refers to Stuart Liddell. Dalliance (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise speedy keep per above and WP:MUSBIO 1, 6, 7, 9, 12 (e.g.). These days, many or most of the prominent players in piping scene are not full-time professional (Liddell is though a schools' and private tutor), with those choosing and able to secure a post in the army in some cases but not necessarily of as much or any greater notability than the top non-professionals. Likewise, the most notable bands are predominantly amateur. The awards and bands in question are the very top in the field, internationally, so if not notable, piping as a whole is not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't have a bias against "amateur" musicians — in actual fact, music is a field where the distinction between "amateur" and "professional" largely isn't a useful one for us to even consider. It's not a field where one needs a license to practice, and while getting a university or college degree in the field certainly can't hurt it isn't a mandatory requirement that one has to undertake before they're allowed to be a musician — so the amateur/professional distinction really just boils down to "are they supporting themselves exclusively on their music alone, or do they still have a day job alongside it?", which is completely irrelevant to WP:NMUSIC. So an article about a musician doesn't live or die on A/P quibbles, but on whether the article contains adequate reliable sourcing to support a credible claim of notability under NMUSIC — and what I see when I look at the articles is that good sourcing is there for Liddell, while Maxwell is parked entirely on primary sources and blurbs. So to me, it's a keep for Liddell, but a delete for Maxwell unless stronger sourcing can be located. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Liddell, seems like he meets notability easily. Maxwell is tougher - I noticed efforts are being made to improve sources and claim notability since the AFD was posted. Right now, despite the sources, I don't really see a strong notability claim for him (source claims are more about the bands that won that he played in, rather than him as an individual), but I'll reserve judgement on him if further additions are being made. -- R45 ^talk! 20:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Maxwell too. I have added some references from reliable sources to his article. Maxwell has the notable claim of being the first person in history to have led the drum corps of two different bands to victory the World Pipe Band Championships. So overall he meets WP:MUSICBIO 6, 7 and 9. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sagra[edit]

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

Participation in a reality show is not grounds for notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find more than 2-3 passing mentions in local press. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kindly check all other participants from the same reality show as this person. WP:TOOSOON.--RioHondo (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages since their only claim to fame is their appearance in the Top 14 of the Reality show.:

The possible exception may be the Koreen who placed fourth in an International beauty pageant of unclear notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for now as I'm not seeing much for improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all given they all fall under the same notability realm. The pageant appears non-notable in Koreen's case as well. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to StarStruck (season 6), all of them are contestants of the reality-based show. --Jojit (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fail for notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 16 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 10:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malissa A. O'Dubhtaigh[edit]

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

Don't believe this person is notable. Doesn't meet GNG IMO. Her suing the VA is a case of BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG (unless there is coverage under previous name that I'm not aware of). Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, per GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination not sufficient coverage to meet GNG. EricSerge (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Put into Draft The article was just created. The AfD nominator barely gave the new editor a chance to develop the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quick actions to AfD sensitive topics (like intersex) are hurting Wikipedia, IMO. We are losing diverse editors because they feel bullied. Note: I am NOT saying they are being bullied, but a deft touch with a newbie isn't a bad thing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't consider myself a deletionist, I fail to see the notability of this individual. She is supposedly a military veteran, but the article does not include military service information. Her surgery occurred in 1998, so I doubt this was a medical breakthrough. Her legal case does not appear to have been a cause célèbre. Her career as a professional martial artist might be notable, at least if someone can find professional information. At this moment the article provides no sources. A google search for the name mostly results in Wikipedia pages about the deletion process. This hardly seems promising. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just aren't sources to attest notability. Do not userfy or draft; this concerns a living person about whom evidently only primary sources exist, so there are BLP problems. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came by after seeing this referenced over at Policy-AfD Culture. I don't wish to vote, but I suspect the strict WP:BIO guidelines exclude this person. That said, I will point at WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. This discussion hits a good amount of those, sadly. Furthermore, the talk pages of the article and its creator have nothing to say about this, suggesting that no attempts at engagement were made, that WP:BEFORE was not followed, and that we just lost another editor. I'm sure "BLP1E" and the rest of the acronyms will really roll off the tongue of the page creator as they explain the arbitrary and capricious ways of Wikipedia editors.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Userfy: This clearly is a unique individual who did something new (to the best of my knowledge). Seems to me to be a lot more than a BIO1E situation and I favor giving this editor (or others) time to get it cleaned up and expanded. But, per this discussion, they may not be able to find more sources (I could not). Montanabw ^(talk) 04:29, 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 Redirect as this seems clear especially considering the article's current state and there is still the availability should a better article ever be achieved. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geophysical Engineering Department of Unila[edit]

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

Non-notable department of an University. Redirect to Lampung University. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Yamaguchi[edit]

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

This, this, this, this and this all suggest he may be notable and has gotten attention (he also has Roy's Restaurant but I'm also not sure if this is independently notable of him or vice versa) but I would like to hear comments for a full consensus. Pinging past user Gentgreen. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well-known chef for almost three decades as one of the founders of "Asian Fusion." With over 33 eponymous restaurants in the United States, plus international restaurants in Japan, Hong Kong and Guam, plus authoring numerous books, many television appearances including his own show in Hawaii, he is quite notable. What the article lacked was inline (or any) citations. I'm remedying that now. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yamaguchi is one of the most important figures in the development of Hawaii Regional Cuisine—he might even be the best known of them all, because of the reach of his restaurants in other parts of the world. 428 hits on HighBeam Research, and the first one is this 2014 national news profile on CBS This Morning. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources added indicate that this person has received significant third-party coverage in the media, and adequately passes the basic notability criteria for Wikipedia articles. --DAJF (talk) 23:33, 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. Sandstein 10:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Caparoso[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionably notable and the best search links I found were here, here, here and here and I also plan to nominate his co-worker Roy Yamaguchi who may not be notable so I will search that one soon. Pinging only still active AfD users Melchoir, Kjkolb, Adrian~enwiki and JzG. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single source that the article cites is held by just four libraries worldwide and, full disclosure, I'm evaluating notability without consulting it. The lone citation was added to the middle of the article a month after creation by an uninvolved editor, so I doubt that it's the original source of everything, although it may well support the sentence where cited.

As the nom observed, there are search hits on his name. Digging into them, the only one I found of substance is the first 200 words or so of this Lodi News-Sentinel article, a profile in connection with winning a local award. He also happens to be that paper's wine columnist. All the other hits are things he's written, brief quotes, trivial mentions, or directory-type listings. Consequently he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC.

An argument could be made that as a wine writer he's "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and therefore satisfies WP:AUTHOR. In my experience, a notable "expert" in a field, whether a food writer, journalist, historian, or biographer, has written books, and is often widely cited by Wikipedia itself. He hasn't and isn't, but if someone can construct a convincing proof that he satisfies WP:AUTHOR, I would be open to changing my recommendation. Worldbruce (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and Worldbruce's excellent detective work. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth independent coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 16 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 10:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UNETSHA[edit]

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

Questionably notable and "UNETSHA" at Books, News, Google browser and Highbeam found some links but not much and nothing recently with the listed website now closed apparently so this may have gotten much attention and not exist at all anymore. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product still exists [5] but I am finding nothing beyond a couple of press release notices of an agreement with Ricoh in 2008. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up press releases but no significant WP:RS coverage. It is possible there is Korean language sourcing, as it appears the software originates from Korea. Dialectric (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT lacks third party reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not covered by reliable sources. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be more or less the same as the prev afd - To keep the article, Don't think you'd gain any more !votes so wrapping it up (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Hornig[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although the other AfD was keep, I would like a fuller consensus to actually see if she's fully notable as my searches found not much better here, here, here and here. With this still existing since September 2008 with never much change, we need attention to see this needs to be kept. Pinging past commenters Whpq, Mabalu and Sjakkalle, Softlavender, WilyD and Trekphiler and I would've also notified Nixie9 but it seems they're no longer much active. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets GNG both as a jeweller and as a philanthropist; doubly so for the combination. The fact that the article needs improvement does not alter that fact. Dozens of sources were mentioned in the previous AfD, and in fact that nominator withdrew the nomination. Here are some of hundreds of others: Full write-ups in the New York Times [6], Gotham [7], International Business Times [8], The Forward [9], and so on, just for a few, in addition to those cited in the previous AfD. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC); edited 08:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning from the first AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my previous rationale also. Also, I have to comment on the nominator's unhelpful habit of linking to general pages of Google search results as an argument. We have no way of telling which specific links on the results page we are supposed to be looking at, even assuming that we are seeing exactly the same results as they are and not an user-unique set of search results which may or may not be the same as what SwisterTwister sees. Mabalu (talk) 23:22, 12 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 10:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nnena[edit]

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

Questionably notable and some of the best search links I found was this and this and with the article's current state and not much change since starting in June 2010, there's not much to suggest better and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- No evidence of notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON and WP:AKON applies. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not seeing the notability here, even if everything in the article were properly sourced. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Can't find anything to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 16 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. Spam, copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act[edit]

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

Should be speedied under G12, but I can't use the URL of the copy-pasted article without triggering the spam blacklist. A simple Google search of "Most of the parts needed can be bought off the shelve from a hardware store. To make the conversion yourself" will produce the copyrighted material as the first result. Can probably be speedied under G3, as well. Blackguard 06:41, 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. Sandstein 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Consulate-General, Chennai[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. coverage merely confirms the consulate exists. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I'm not seeing much better. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Fails GNG. Jbh ^Talk 11:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show this meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 16 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 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Shabow[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be recreated if and when he passes WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 22:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Akram Qureshi[edit]

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

Granted this is a Pakistan subject so sources may not be easily accessible and if he actually existed, that may be the case because I found nothing but results for a public leader from the 1960s and 1970s and until I added "volleyball coach" I found what mostly seem to be mirrors here. With no chance of improvement and sourcing, there's simply nothing to suggest better and may be a WP:TNT at best. Inviting past users Vrac and Northamerica1000 and I would've also invited the PROD tagger Patchy1 but it seems they retired shortly after and recently in July. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't sure what to do with this one. As a player on/coach of the national team he would qualify under WP:ATHLETE, but I couldn't find anything. Given the location and the fact that his career mostly predates the web it's quite possible that there are only offline sources. Could be deleted as failing WP:V but what this really needs is someone who knows Pakistani sources (which isn't me). Vrac (talk) 18:09, 24 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! 00:24, 1 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) 05:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless better sourcing can be found per Vrac. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources added after nomination appear to support the only two votes in this discussion. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legends and Tales of the Pine Barrens[edit]

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

This hardly seems like an acceptable Wikipedia article and although my searches found results here, here, here and here suggest this is locally known folklore but also nothing else than humorous stories. It's worth noting this has hardly changed since February 2007 and the author was locked in 2010. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe any of this stuff, but there are probably dozens of books written on the topic. I've added references and a list of about seven or eight books that are about the topic. After the AfD is closed, I would suggest renaming this to Legends and tales of the Pine Barrens or Legends and tales of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 24 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! 00:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 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) 05:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename I can't speak for when the AfD was filed, but the article seems excessively well-sourced now - meeting verifiability and reliability standards (still not using the n-word). The stuff people write books about. I agree with adding New Jersey in the name to clarify the topic though.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:47, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Steinberg (author)[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if he's notable as my searches found nothing noticeably good and although the article is somewhat acceptable with the current sources, I'm not seeing anything better. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't citing any reliable source coverage at all, but is resting entirely on primary sources, namechecks of his existence in directories, and his book's buy-me page on Amazon.com. And about half of the references here are dead links, to boot. That's not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person into Wikipedia — he has to actually be the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources to earn a Wikipedia article, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's possible to verify that he exists. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if his sourceability ever gets better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 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! 00:18, 1 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) 05:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the guy exists. The guy writes. The guy is not notable (as per searches). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 16 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 10:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gummy Money[edit]

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

Non-notable single, lack of signifiant coverage. In the article there's a claim that it "topped the hip hop charts in five different countries" but I have found nothing to verify this. Best I found was a tweet from the artist claiming to be "number one in Sweden" [10], but it can't be found in an archive for Sverigetopplistan, which seems to be the only notable Swedish chart [11]. So I'm assuming he meant for the Swedish iTunes or some lesser known chart. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose as there's no obvious move elsewhere and my searches found links at Books, News and browser but I'm not seeing better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:32, 7 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) 05:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Amici[edit]

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

A mayor in an Italian town, individual appears to be non-notable per Wikipedia standards. Very little online that would prove notability. Other than being a mayor, no mentions whatsoever. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Head of state of a sovereign state. San Marino may be small, but he still easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino is not an "Italian town" — it's a sovereign independent state in its own right, and its Captains Regent are its national heads of state. So he's not a non-notable mayor; he's a notable equivalent to a president or prime minister of a country that has those offices. Some referencing improvement is still needed, absolutely, but WP:NPOL is satisfied here. Speedy keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said by Necrothesp and Bearcat, he isn't a mayor, rather the equivalent to a president. Captains-Regent of San Marino are the highest office in that country and are not equivalent to mayors (that instead would go to the heads of the nine municipalities of the sovereign state). All other Captains-Regent since 2003 (except for Nicola Renzi, who was recently installed) have their own articles. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Wotan[edit]

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

Probable hoax at best, work of fiction at worst, and in either event contributors to the Milhist project are of the mind that it needs to be afd'd, so here we are. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to delete, after revisiting the sources it looks like this stems from Macksey, K. (ed.) The Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of World War II, London Greenhill Books. Probably Lucas J. (1995) "Operation Wotan. The Panzer Thrust to Capture Moscow. October-November 1941" also presents a fictional account. Brandmeister^talk 08:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both the above are the same work; Lucas's piece is a chapter in The Hitler Options. Niall Ferguson has since picked the ball up and run with it, which has probably popularised the term. ‑ iridescent 08:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ok then. Brandmeister^talk 13:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not a hoax—"Operation Wotan" was the term used by James Lucas in The Hitler Options for a hypothetical attack on Moscow, which in turn was picked up and propagated by Niall Ferguson in Virtual History, but to the best of my knowledge there's no evidence that the Germans ever used this name, and the article as it stands is written in-universe and doesn't make it clear that this is a fictional operation. (That Hitler hoped to occupy Moscow is not in doubt, but his forces never came close enough for the high command to draw up detailed plans on how they would do it.) I can't find the term used at any point in any genuine WW2 history, even every-grain-of-sand books like Beevor's Stalingrad and Kershaw's Hitler, and dropping "Wotan Moscow" into Google Books doesn't throw up a single hit other than works of fiction, false positives regarding Wagner performances at Moscow theatres, and this highly questionable looking pseudo-book. If this is kept, it needs a complete rewrite to make it clear that it's a reference to a work of fiction not to a genuine German plan. ‑ iridescent 08:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- This is being presented as history. There certainly were major efforts by the Germans to capture Moscow, so that it is not exactly a hoax. However, Gene93's research indicates that this is not the historical name for the siege, but the result of a counter-factual argument. Counter-factual arguments are a respectable academic tool for historians, but this is going too far: it is getting into the realms more like fiction and has not place in an encyclopaedia. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per iridescent. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's not an historical piece.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:15, 14 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 10:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Bernard[edit]

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

Non-notable person with 2 self published ref and one interview in a newspaper. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could possibly be speedied as promotion due to how some of the article is phrased, but I'd like to see it go through a full AfD just for posterity. In any case, a search brings up nothing but one local source. She's performed in pageants, but none of them are the ones that Wikipedia would consider to be notable. This doesn't mean that they can't be challenging to win, but there are just so many of them out there that at some point Wikipedia has to be discerning on which ones give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; clearly non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply not much here and nothing to suggest better improvement with my first searches instantly finding nothing but primary social links. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as while the one reliable source is more than an interview (Rudolph, Rebecca (November 12, 2014). "Pageants are a positive place, Sun Prairie girl says". Sun Prairie Star. Sun Prairie, WI: Hometown News Group. Retrieved October 12, 2015.) the only reasonable assertion of notability is winning the Teen level of "Outstanding American Miss" which is apparently not really a national title. - Dravecky (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in the searches to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage by reliable sources. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn – article has been requested to be moved to draft.(non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project Wiki Page About Solar Power[edit]

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

Unencyclopdic WP:NOTESSAY nicely fully WP:OR and self-admitted school project. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey so funny story -- I have already come to the conclusion that my page "Project Wiki Page About Solar Power" is getting deleted, so this page in itself is unnecessary. Toti (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/speedy delete. This is at best something someone came up with WP:ONEDAY or a test page and at worst, a hoax. I speedied this, but consider this to be a WP:SNOW close as well, unless sourcing can be provided to prove that this is an actual thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9234[edit]

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

Apparent hoax or something made up; no sources and badly written. Article barely makes any sense. Adam9007 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Delete do not stop at Prod, keep going past AfD..--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It looks like a test/experiment. Gap9551 (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unopposed deletion. Sandstein 07:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinata games[edit]

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

Rather open and shut case of non-notability as it was a newly formed company which seemed to have closed within a year despite hopes of a Catalyst Game labs connection, and with their website is closed and my searches finding nothing better than this, there's nothing to suggest this company had a better legacy and existence (I'm not even seeing anything to suggest mentioning at Catalyst's article). This also hasn't changed much since starting in November 2008 and chances are it's not going to change. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 24 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! 00:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Levesley[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, google brings up a whole lot of sites selling his books but that is all. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:56, 24 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! 00:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no coverage to be found whatsoever. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:11, 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. Sandstein 07:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrius Puksas[edit]

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

WP:BLP, completely unsourced except for some press release blurbs on the website of the university where he got his law degree (i.e. invalid primary sources that cannot confer WP:GNG), of a lawyer with no particular claim of notability for much more than the fact of his existence. Further, this is written as a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article — but Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, so that's not the type of article that anybody gets to have on here regardless of their notability or lack thereof. Delete, unless somebody with Lithuanian language skills can salvage it with a stronger notability claim and better sourcing than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are only two assertions that might have prevented application of WP:A7 deletion: "Director of Institute of Lithuanian Scientific Society" and "Head of Social Innovations Doctoral School". But for those positions to confer notability, they would have to be of substantial significance themselves. Are they? Anyway, there are few Google hits for him, though I'm cautious about taking that number straight up because names are declined in Lithuanian so there could be more instances of his name in other case forms. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom. Renata (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable 30-year-old lawyer. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up no in-depth coverage to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 16 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.