< 26 September	28 September >

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, with no prejudice against converting this to an article about the series. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Burn[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable book (or series; the article is kind of about the series, too). No awards, and I'm not finding referenes to reviews in notable publications to make the title meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, I found this chapter in They Suck, They Bite, They Eat, They Kill: The Psychological Meaning of Supernatural Monsters in Young Adult Fiction. There's also a few reviews in the usual places: Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and Booklist. I also found an article in The Guardian. Yeah, it's not exactly a slam dunk case of notability, but I think maybe there's enough here to vote to keep. If I hadn't found that chapter from They Suck, I'd probably have suggested a merge somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems acceptable with general notability guidelines (GNG) coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Angel Trilogy. I've already altered the article to where it's now about the series rather than the first book, although I will note that the books have received enough coverage to where they would likely merit their own individual articles. I didn't include all of the reviews out there, since there are more reviews in places like the School Library Journal and the Horn Book publications. I did remove the prior plot synopsis since it did contain copyrighted text from the book jacket, but I have no problem with someone writing out a smaller summary encompassing the series as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a11, obvious original research, author expressly states that he made up this theory. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Fields Fluctuations, Time stop[edit]

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

Article is incomprehensible. It clearly is meant to have some technical meaning, but it is impossible to determine what that meaning is. It isn't patent nonsense, but it isn't any more informative than if it were. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (maybe speedy). Honestly I think it qualifies for G1 (WP:PATENT says [c]ontent that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. If the meaning cannot be identified, it is impossible to accurately copy-edit the text., and I think that applies here. But no rush, I suppose. Anyway, the content is unsalvageable because no one knows what is intended, there is no merge target for the same reason, and the title is not a plausible search term or link target so there's no redirect target either. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the points above, the article is clearly original research by the author (it even includes his name on the first line). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should an admin deem speedy deletion desirable, I feel this satisfied CSD#A11. This is fringe physics, self-avowedly created by the article editor, with no evidence of wider acceptance or significance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:15, 28 September 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 all. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elm Street (Leavenworth, Kansas)[edit]

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

Non-notable city streets Sounder Bruce 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 22:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 22:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources given indicating anything notable about any of these streets; does not seem to meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These streets are not notable at all and don't deserve individual coverage, not even in a list. Dough4872 23:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all—none establish any sense of notability at all. Imzadi 1979 → 00:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No indication that these streets have any encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As Freddy Krueger once said, "Every town has an Elm Street." I fail to see why these individual streets have any claim to notability. Even streets in Manhattan don't automatically get articles just because they exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all existence does not equal notability.--Paul McDonald (talk)
SNOW delete all as Wikipedia is a local guide and as interested as I am with geography and transportation, there's simply not much here with at best the chance of any notable and noteworthy information being merged to Leavenworth, Kansas's article. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 2 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) sst ✈ 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neils Hogenson House[edit]

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

Though this building is old, it is not a provincial or national historic site. Being designated a historic site at the local level does not confer notability, and no reliable source is provided to confirm notability otherwise. This good faith creation simply is not notable.

Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Being designated a historic site and any level is good enough. The worst case would be merger to some more general articles such as Kit houses in North America per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus and expand This individual house does not appear to pass notability, but the Eaton Catalogue houses as a group do. Because of lack of lumber on the prairies, catalogue houses were an important factor for western development, and some of the Eaton houses have had some media coverage. For example, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. If the focus of the article were broadened, quite an interesting article could result, and there would be plenty of references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable including its historic history. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 2 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 01:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warner elevator row[edit]

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

The "Warner elevator row" is not officially designated a provincial or national historic site. Being considered historic at the local level does not confer notability, and no reliable source is provided to confirm notability otherwise beyond local area. The only reference in the article is for the Alberta Pacific Elevator Co. Ltd. at Raley, which is not part of Warner elevator row and not even on the register of provincial historic sites itself. It is simply an entry in the lesser Alberta Heritage Survey Program. This good faith creation simply is not notable.

Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG - see Preserving prairie cathedrals, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several references to the article. As well, there is certainly an article about these elevators in one of Jim Pearson's three "Vanishing Sentinals" books, but because they are not on line I don't know which one. The article needs some editing to be more neutral, and when Pearson's book is found a check for copyright problems should be made.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The prairies had elevators, located in towns. Vulcan had more. 117Avenue (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

117Avenue, so the deletion rationale is this topic fails GNG because Vulcan had more elevators? --Oakshade (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It fails notability because it is a common occurrence, and there are no other articles on the subject. 117Avenue (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Anne Delong and Andrew D. The National Post article indicates the notability is national, not just local. --Oakshade (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep With good sources, good images, and an interesting topic, this is a strong keep!--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 2 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 Stirling, Alberta. Courcelles (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling Elevator[edit]

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

A modern concrete grain elevator built six years ago is not notable. No reliable sources are provided to confirm notability otherwise. This good faith creation simply is not notable.

Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This seems to be a substantial and significant structure. The worst case is that we'd merge into Stirling,_Alberta#Economy per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for failing WP:GNG. The Prairies are filled with grain elevators. There's nothing unusual about it; this one, also in Alberta, looks bigger. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elevators aren't notable structures. 117Avenue (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or simply delete) at best if appropriate as I'm not seeing much improvement for this one. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is simply a large grain elevator. There is nothing in the article to indicate it is notable, and no sources are provided. Nothing significant to merge. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Stirling,_Alberta. It's worth a mention, but no more than a couple of sentences. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local, non-notable landmark. No sources could be found to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a local landmark, but no historical or architectural significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Larson House[edit]

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

Though this building is old, it is not a provincial or national historic site. Being designated a historic site at the local level does not confer notability, and there is no reliable source to confirm notability otherwise. This good faith creation simply is not notable.

Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not claim any particular architectural or historical importance of this house over millions of other old houses. There don't appear to be articles about it in any online history books.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible to Stirling or simply delete if this can't be accomplished as if at all this may be locally significant and notable but not enough for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can find no evidence of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Queen Hotel[edit]

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

This is a non-notable building that existed for only 23 years and has not existed for 83 years. Its significance is and was only local in nature. This good faith creation simply is not notable.

Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Seems to be a promising topic and a significant structure in that town. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, the worst cases would be merger into Stirling, Alberta. Andrew D. (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how notability could be established in this case. PK T(alk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a Google search of "Prairie Queen Hotel" found a book of the same name. the example text provided by Google was a couple of sentences which are the same as the lead of this article. ~~There is no preview online for this book, so it's difficult to tell how much of this article may be a copyright violation.~~—Anne Delong (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne Delong, this does not surprise me. The editor that created the article has a history of copyright violations. One discussion remains on the editor's talk, but there is also this, and I believe there are records as well on past AfDs as well. Confirmed and suspected socks that have created similar articles have the same track record of copyright violations. Hwy43 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That book was created from Wikipedia content and so there's no copyright issue. This article has existed for 7 years now and so has been extensively copied across the internet. It would be unhelpful to now delete the original. The content such as the photographs indicates that the primary author had access to local sources such as newspapers which are difficult to Google. That makes it difficult to improve the article but it would be disruptive to remove it altogether when there are better alternatives. Please understand that deletion does not actually delete anything; it just makes it inaccessible to ordinary editors. I can't see any reason to restrict this content to administrators. Andrew D. (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't look at the link. Looks like it is derived from or mirrored content from here then. I strike the above as an incorrect assumption. Hwy43 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, are you referring to the text that follows "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" at the link provided by Anne? I don't know if we can even confirm this is example text from the book and thereby be confident it was a book created from Wikipedia content (unless I'm missing something that is more explicit). Rather, the book entry could have lacked a summary so a summary of the book's subject could have been grabbed from the Wikipedia article. Hwy43 (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "book" seems to be the work of VDM Publishing. Please see The Dusty Bookcase for an account of the other work of Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn. Andrew D. (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice the summary about the book being created from Wikipedia articles. I have stricken the sentence about copyright. Although flickr isn't a reliable source, if the caption on this link is correctly transcribed, the photograph is indeed from a news article. There is also an extensive article in the book Stirling, its story and people : 1899-1980 which contains a reprint of the photograph. I couldn't find the publication date, but the title suggests it's about 1980.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne Delong, note that book was created and published by the Stirling Sunset Society, now the Stirling Historical Society. Such books prepared by local volunteer historical societies are rarely enough to establish widespread notability about local events, buildings, etc. on their own as they give more weight to local things that are not significant beyond that local community. Also, the tone of the news article is that of a promotional advertisement. We need better sources than the book and newspaper advertisement to establish true notability. The news article is WP:ROUTINE coverage about the operation of the hotel during the short period it actually existed. Hwy43 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small town hotel, no notability established. 117Avenue (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. A short-lived old building, built in 1909, demolished in 1932. Apparently the town didn't think enough of its historical significance to try to preserve it. None of the information in the article is verified. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh Nice article, with good illustrations, on an interesting historical topic. Representative of what we should be publishing (as opposed to the contemporary pop culture crap which we have far too much of). Sadly, however, I can't find anything which meets WP:RS, so I can't in good faith argue to keep. But I also can't argue to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to garner significant coverage. Like RoySmith, I think the article is well done. Too bad we did not have historic registers back in the 1920's. However, as it was marked for demolition so soon after being built I suspect there were structural problems on the upper floors. Many small towns with big dreams had hotels like this one built during the Gilded Age, in the west when the railroads went through. Many are long gone, but many have made it onto state and federal historic registers. --Bejnar (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harker House[edit]

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

Though this now-demolished building was old, it was not officially designated a provincial or national historic site. Being considered historic at the local level does not confer notability. No reliable source to confirm notability otherwise beyond local area. This good faith creation simply is not notable.

Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Magrath per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't mention anything notable about this house. There's no mention of unique architecture. If it was built for a bank manager it can't be one of the oldest houses. There is no indication that it had newsworthy history before it was demolished. Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. The article about Magrath doesn't mention the bank, but even if a small section was added about it, not more than one sentence about the manager's house would be needed. It's listed as an "attraction" in the Magrath article, but with no indication of what made it interesting. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything to show the notability of this particular house. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this property was considered significant; there does not appear to have been any attempt to salvage it after it caught fire. It had been surveyed by the Alberta Register of Historic Places (the only reference), but was never actually listed as historic. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC) ===INDIACHATZ===}[reply]

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

Non-notable app. Launched at the beginning of September and I can find no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. Sadly A7 excludes software. BethNaught (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability, no in-depth coverage via Google. Clear violation of WP:PROMO (incl. non-commercial and free products) by one of the app developers. GermanJoe (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The user appears, based on other activity here, to be the Indrajit who co-created the software, and this article stands out essentially as public relations with no indication of significance for the product. With the addition of the app store note, I think it qualifies for speedy deletion as promotional. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page created by software developer.Aamir Humshakal (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. ABF99 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a wide notability in India.It was created by a 15yrs old boy living in Kolkata named Indrajit Sharma. Inder9804 —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is the article creator and possibly the software's author. BethNaught (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MKO Games[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (its individual games are not independently notable either). If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. – czar 20:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found some links with browser and Books, there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some brief mentions on News, and a single hit in books - no notability established. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: some coverage in French press but mostly brief mentions or items in journalists' blogs like this. Company went bankrupt and domain is defunct. Vrac (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India Book of Records[edit]

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

Non-notable book or website (it's unclear which it even is), article probably created to promote other things created at the same time by sockfarms, described at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ravi Tripathi and others. Brianhe (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching for sources when I did the COI clean up, but the only things available are mentions in the context of local interest pages describing "winners" of entries. Nothing about this that I could find. —SpacemanSpiff 12:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing better than News links. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 2 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) 02:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Tate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources to demonstrate WP:NAUTHOR is met. (Clean up of paid editing by User:The_Librarian_at_Terminus.) SmartSE (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sourcing can be found. He seems to be doing great work, but has not been recognized for it. Right now, I don't see any reviews in major publications, which are the loadstar of our standards for creative people. I'm willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found some links with News and browser, it is too soon and there's not much for better improvement. Draft and userfy if wished, SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 2 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) 02:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mental contrasting[edit]

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

Article is written like an advert, was created by an editor with a clear COI and relies heavily on primary sources samtar ^(msg) 19:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclaimer, I am the author of the article put up for deletion, however I contest that the article is written like an advert. Links that would lead to potential monetary or status gain (such as a link to buying a book recently written about Mental Contrasting) are NOT included. Further, false claims about the effectiveness of Mental Contrasting are NOT made and contact information is NOT included. In fact, each claim in the article is backed up by referenced scientific research. While I acknowledge that there may be a slight conflict of interest, according to Wikipedia's guidelines this isn't necessarily a cause for deletion. The information written is presented by me in good faith that the information is relevant and important. This belief is founded in the numerous amounts of news articles that have been written about Mental Contrasting as well as about WOOP. Importantly I will add links to said news articles so that references are not predominantly those of the author of Mental Contrasting. Please note however, that the papers referenced have all been reviewed by top scientific journals in the field of Psychology who have found the findings to be consistent, relevant, and important. Further, hundreds of other psychological papers have cited these articles according to a google scholar search of Mental Contrasting. Lastly, the article in question is relinked from the term WOOP, a page which was put up for deletion several months ago see: here. Consensus on the deletion of WOOP was in no way unanimous and a compromise, namely, linking WOOP to Mental Contrasting was agreed upon. During this time the authenticity and importance of Mental Contrasting was NOT questioned. Removing Mental Contrasting would thus remove not only Mental Contrasting, but also WOOP from any reference on Wikipedia. Furthermore, according to wikipedia traffic statistics (the number of viewers of the page), Mental Contrasting and WOOP have each been searched on average 500 times per month since the beginning of 2015, making an average of 1,000 views to the page a month. In conclusion, I believe it would be a disservice to the Wikipedia community to remove Mental Contrasting. See here. Most of all, I would appreciate any advice of how to continue to improve the page so it is up to Wikipedia's standards AntonGollwitzer ^(msg) 16:05, 27 September 2015 (EST)

Those interested in this deletion discussion may wish to the the PLOS blog entry Promoting a positive psychology self-help book with a Wikipedia entry which specifically discusses this article.— Rod ^talk 19:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appears to be wide but shallow coverage as criticism of a fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all the above reasons . In almost any other article, I would tend to regard the reference list as citation spam - every ref has one author's name in common. There is a question in my mind whether this is also WP:OR? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- For all of the above reasons and more. The author fails to reveal he is a family member of the author of a self-help book for which the article is coordinated with press releases and an extensive publicity campaign. 19/20 references are to his mother's work. I agree with the other commentator who noted there is a much larger relevant research distinguished only by it not adopting this author's mother 's label and appropriation. Much of this literature is not supportive of the points made in the article. This article indeed reads like an advertisement . If students relied on this article for an understanding of the processes the author subsumes under "mental contrasting," they would get low grades for failing to provide a balanced review and cherrypicking of available literature, choosing only supportive findings. (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 19 out of 20 references are to works by Oettingen, and are therefore primary sources. Wikipedia articles should be mainly based on secondary sources to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Milić[edit]

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

It has very bold statements to indicate notability and significance however, the statements do not appear to have any evidence to back them up. Olowe2011 ^Talk 17:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan was a young activist from Serbia. But if you think that the surplus delete it. I love to promote young succeful people. Sorry if i made a mistake. Best regards 20.42 cet 21, September 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmajodsipova (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources and I could find nothing--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pease (creative director)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. Only poor quality coverage in relation to Australia's Next Top Model e.g.. Other coverage only mentions him in passing e.g.. (Cleanup of an old paid editor User:Neurosciency). SmartSE (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a puff piece about a non-notable subject written on contract by a paid editor. Even if the notability bar were passed, WP:TNT applies. The Dissident Aggressor 21:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional article about of person of no apparent notability DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--SmartSE, DA, and DGG are all correct, as am I. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP of a behind-the-scenes staff person on a reality show, very run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged to Church_of_Nosso_Senhor_do_Bonfim,_Salvador#Fita_do_Senhor_do_Bonfim_bracelets. While I agree that a merge discussion might have been simpler, Deletion Debates at AFD routinely end up with merged articles - so it's really not a big deal, in the grand scheme of things. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fita do Senhor do Bonfim[edit]

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

Does not seem to indicate significance. Olowe2011 ^Talk 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per: a simple Google search.

Remove AfD proposal. Proposal doesn't give a reason, or refer to a Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Prburley (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion irrelevant now, article merged. AfD proposal was created, article then merged/directed to Church of Nosso Senhor do Bonfim, Salvador. There should have been a merge proposal on the Fita do Senhor do Bonfim page, not an AfD proposal here. Prburley (talk) 22:51, 27 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molehill Empire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It only had promotional/press release hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. (I should note that I went through the links in the previous AfD and didn't find enough to warrant a dedicated article.) – czar 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked through the usual searches and I didn't find anything either. I'm finding more notes on it than usual but mostly from non-notable sources. I'm willing to switch if someone else is able to find reliable sources in other languages as well. Nomader (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough to be mentioned. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable enough to be included on the ultimate encyclopedia! --173.241.225.193 (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is defined by how well-covered it is, so unless there are sources to back up a notability claim, it's not valid for Wikipedia. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gamestar is notable per WP:VG/RS, but I don't know German, so I can't vouch for the article based upon that source. The rest are all wikis and other unreliable sources, and searching for other sources gave me questionable ones at best. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:33, 1 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Clayton[edit]

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

Is pretty much unsourced and I can't find any sources. The guy doesn't seem to have any independent notability. Brustopher (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this interview in Electro Shock!: Groundbreakers of Synth Music. It's not easy to find in-depth sources. There was a flurry of coverage on Google News from Simply Red reformed, but the articles don't seem to do much more than mention his involvement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the coverage listed above and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage for him to pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Smoothie Productions[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its only hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search were press releases or change logs, and nothing in depth about the group. It could potentially redirect to a List of Quake mods if someone has suggested sources and such a target. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. – czar 17:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to lack of secondary coverage. --Rubbish computer 17:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Interesting article about mods for Quake and would probably be suited to be incorporated into it. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no explicit need for merging as this is mentioned at all Quake articles and not only has there been no activity since starting in October 2006, my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches did not reveal in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and there's not enough here to warrant a merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's no prohibition against replacing this with some new version (i.e. Draft:Homefront (series)), but that new version should address the specific concerns raised here. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homefront (series)[edit]

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

Seeing as my redirect was reverted I'm AfDing this. A video game series article for a single video game is completely redundant. It introduces no new information whatsoever and is currently pointless. The1337gamer (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Someone should send the template to TFD too. -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All coverage of the "Homefront series" in a video game reliable sources custom Google search is really about one of the two games and should be covered in the respective article. Series articles aren't necessary until reliable, secondary sources start to discuss the series as its own entity apart from the games themselves. Send the navbox with it. – czar 17:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was considering if the dev studio might have been a good target for a merge but with the number of hands on this, that really doesn't work. Plus, Homefront the TV series is more notable than this series. If we get to 3 games, that might be a reason to consider a video game series article. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per czar's points. --Rubbish computer 17:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but now I want to play the game. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is currently an active draft created by a different editor: Draft:Homefront (series). Salavat (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to THQ as although Dambuster has started making this series, it is mentioned several times at the former's article but my searches found notthing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonored (series)[edit]

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

Seeing as my redirect was reverted I'm AfDing this. A video game series article for a single video game is completely redundant. It introduces no new information whatsoever and is currently pointless. The1337gamer (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All coverage of the "Dishonored series" in a video game reliable sources custom Google search is really about one of the two games and should be covered in the respective article. Series articles aren't necessary until reliable, secondary sources start to discuss the series as its own entity apart from the games themselves. Send the navbox with it. – czar 17:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Someone should send the template to TFD too. -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per czar's points. --Rubbish computer 17:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was going to suggest a merge to Arkane's page but there's really nothing to merge. And a 2 game "series" is not a series. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would've also been best to redirect to one of the production company and as my searches found nothing better, there's no better article here. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above arguments. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Masamune#Swords. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 10:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coldy Bimore[edit]

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

Page has no reliable sources and appears to largely be based on blogs Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History: This name seems to have entered Wikipedia when an IP editor added it to the Honjo Masamune page without any supporting reference while the page was an article (3 July 2006). Honjo Masamune was later "nominated for merging" on Talk:Masamune#"Honjô" Masamune; on 19 September 2006, the content of Honjo Masamune was added to Masamune and Honjo Masamune was turned into a redirect. There was no history merge. On 29 April 2014, the Coldy Bimore page was created, possibly based on a casting call. On 30 April 2014, the reference on Masamune to Bimore was wikilinked to the Coldy Bimore page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Masamune#Swords where he is mentioned as although my searches found some links at Books, News and browser, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC) - Closed bold, SwisterTwister, hope you don't mind. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect as per SwisterTwister. Nothing to show independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others have suggested. There might be room for fleshing out that article slightly with material from this one, but not by much. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found what is probably the source. The reference to Bimore is on the next to last page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Shaukat Chaudhry[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic material. Dawnseeker2000 16:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to meet WP:NPERSON through secondary coverage such as this and this. While the article is biased, poorly worded and unencyclopedic, in my opinion this is not a sufficient reason to delete it. --Rubbish computer 17:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – OK, not going to argue with that, as I really don't know my way around AfD that well; It's the ack factor that got me on this one. Dawnseeker2000 01:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only is this simply "psychic stuff", my searches found nothing better than this and so unless he has historic and otherwise significant connections, there's nothing to suggest keeping and nothing for needing a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up some brief mentions, but nothing to show they pass the notability bar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete predicting the future? Well, there is only a limited number of possibilities, so some of a large number of astrologers will "predict" the right one, and then will fail many times predicting other things. I predict this article will be deleted, because it fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER Kraxler (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INEOX (iOS Jailbreak)[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about newly-release iOS jailbreak software product. The article consists of original research and promotional content. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 16:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, it may be a rename of previously deleted IN3O X. clpo13_(talk) 16:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is mostly copied from Spirit (iOS jailbreak). Crow^Caw 16:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this page if some issues added — Preceding unsigned comment added by MySpaceRock (talk • contribs) 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proper source. Aamir Humshakal (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 VFL Grand Final[edit]

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

For reasons as stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 VFL Grand Final: This particular Grand Final is a Grand Final for a second-tier non-fully-professional league. The match had no particular distinguishing features or lasting notoriety and all coverage of it was Wikipedia:ROUTINE; this makes it not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. (The lack of distinguishing features makes this case different to the two other Grand Finals from the same league which do have articles: 1967 VFA Grand Final and 1971 VFA Grand Final, both of which have lasting notoriety in the context of Australian rules football history and are the subject of non-routine coverage). Additionally, all information contained within this spin-out article it is either replicated directly from or paraphrased from 2015 VFL season, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Recommended redirect to 2015 VFL season#Grand Final. Alza08 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirex opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 VFL Grand Final but has requested the two discussion be WP:BUNDLEd here:

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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 17:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. I note that if this is bundled with the nomination of the corresponding 2014 article, I agree with Aspirex's observations concerning deletion of that article also. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As indicated above, I proposed the 2014 VFL Grand Final deletion for the reasons stated above, and agree they are equally valid for 2015. It's a wholly redundant fork. Aspirex (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have WP:BUNDLEd 2014 VFL Grand Final on Aspirex's request and will procedural close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 VFL Grand Final. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 10:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiquitta Tobar[edit]

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

I'm not sure the college career is enough for notabiity. If so, the article should be restricted to that, because nothing else is. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the college career is enough for notability and these are quality articles. Moreover, her community service awards and life were also not only mentioned but covered in these sources. See: showing sheer number of articles on her college career Discussing early life too Alabama A&M basketball: Tobar up for yet another prestigious honor (college career). Sources on post college: Extensive discussion of post-college community service and social justice life Mention of Tobar's law school career --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets qualification for inclusion based on WP:NCOLLATH because she has "been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries." --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. If she's notable as an athlete, that's what the article should be about--trying to iuse it as a springboard to write about her non-notable further career is can look like promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bolding intentional? What are you responding to? Shouldn't you add to your original nomination.--JumpLike23 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the emphasis, and the wording. Sorry about that. DGG ( talk ) 13:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG based on multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently published sources of presumed reliability. A clear and obvious sports keep does not preclude other biographical coverage in the same piece. This series of several nominations of a single creator by the same nominator, all of which seem to easily meet GNG based upon footnotes showing in the piece, strike me as misguided misinterpretations of sourcing guidelines and AfD tradition at best, abusive harassment at worst. Knock it the hell off. Carrite (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly meets GNG, WP:NCOLLATH--as discussed above, and WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" which she meets because she the player of year in the SAC, D1.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG as well as NCOLLATH. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn this nomination was made following an OTRS contact about an unrelated issue from a third party. As the issues within have been resolved, closing this now. Mdann52 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ousmane Sow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST - one selfpub source and one dead link Mdann52 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there perhaps some mistake here, Mdann52? While I fully agree that our article is pitiful, this is a major artist of established international repute. He was the first black African to be made a member of the Académie des Beaux-Arts, which in itself is enough to guarantee his notability. Here is the BBC calling him "one of Africa's foremost artists" – which he surely is; here is a reviewer in Africa Spectrum calling him "Ein internationaler Superstar". He gets about 25 hits on JSTOR (allowing for a Malian film director of the same name and a writer on Malian music called Ousmane Sow Huchard), including this in-depth study of his work; 127 hits on Highbeam; 733 hits on Google News. I'm more than happy to work on this if you would like to. May I suggest withdrawing this nomination, though? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 27 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Reynolds[edit]

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

This person has been mentioned in passing in RS, but I can't find any substantial coverage as required to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BIO. (Clean up of paid editing). SmartSE (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a single in-depth source to the subject, rather lots of stuff like "Three Tricks To Step Up Your Self-Promotion Skills" which seems to have been taken to Wikipedia as well. — Brianhe (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although nice of an article this is and I found links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam, this could use a restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. db-banned|1=Orangemoody Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carafina[edit]

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

Non-notable fashion retailer. Sources are SPS, blogs and PR announcements. No better coverage via Google (the name search is conflated with other topics). GermanJoe (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article was previously deleted as part of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am just going through and nominating a whole batch of such re-creations from socks and/or SPA accounts. GermanJoe (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Article creator appears to be a WP:SPA, only edits have been to the current and previous article of the same name.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created by an SPA which in my book is enough grounds for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 01:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator Reymondrick has been confirmed as an Orangemoody sock. Can this be speedy deleted now? — Brianhe (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per Orangemoody Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United medical credit[edit]

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

Non-notable company. SPA-created article. Sources are SPS, PR publications and blogs. No better coverage via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for an entry and currently reads like an advertisement. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment created by Orangemoody sock Montik26 — Brianhe (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator.

2015-16 Haier T20 Cup[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a sports season mostly consisting of stats. Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 14:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator.- Mr X 12:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is notable but not enough information is given. But yes, it did fail WP:NOTSTATS so I suggest that the stats should be removed. Ayub407^talk 14:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:~~But~~ And Ayub407^talk 14:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the top level of T20 cricket in Pakistan and is part of a series of T20 tournaments by year/country. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts, though as noted, the article could do with some work to show its notability. Harrias ^talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts, the article has some issues but there is no concern on GNG. The largest Pakistani cricket tournament gets large coverage. Faizan (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The Haier T20 Cup is one of the three top-level domestic competitions in Pakistan, which has over 200 million people and where cricket is the most popular sport. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:22, 28 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaytech[edit]

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

WP:BLP with (two) main sources being primary. PROD was declined as having two charting singles - which ones so we can see against WP:NMUSIC. Looks a bit borderline GNG or WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 14:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn thanks, laziness/time mea culpa. Widefox; talk 17:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone is willing to work on that article. I'm not. Peter238 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article sources are inadequate, but there are sources with non-trivial coverage such as [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. The subject seems to meet WP:MUSICBIO.- Mr X 14:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thought may be so, worth checking (considering promo articles working through)...withdrawn. Widefox; talk 17:22, 27 September 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. Patrolling admin see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Bloomerfield[edit]

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

Non-notable author, SPA-created article. Sources are SPS, blogs and trivial listings. No better coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator Randilnio has been confirmed as an Orangemoody sock. Can this be speedy deleted now? — Brianhe (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by RHaworth per CSD G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EVoy Technologies[edit]

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

Non-notable startup company, SPA-created article. Sources are SPS, blogs and promotional product previews (all inclusive with discount and contact information). No better coverage found via Google. WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. GermanJoe (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage by secondary sources. --Rubbish computer 14:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available sources. The company may be notable someday if their product succeeds, but for now most of the only coverage seems to be press release generated. - Mr X 14:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created by confirmed Orangemoody sock Larsmui and has no other editors. — Brianhe (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per Orangemoody socks Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LitFire Publishing[edit]

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

Non-notable company. SPA-created article. Sources are SPS, press releases and blogs. No in-depth coverage found via Google (some passing mentions, some complaints about alleged customer scams). GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only real coverage is from press releases. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 14:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Created by confirmed Orangemoody sock Pesetgio2. Can this be speedy deleted? — Brianhe (talk) 00:52, 30 September 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, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Bender (author)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, have only been able to find these: [16] - a review of one of his books, [17] - 21st Century Children's Nonfiction: A Conference Recap a conference he co-founded, [18] - Second Annual 21st Century Children's Nonfiction Conference Builds Momentum the second year of the conference, [19] - Nonfiction Conference Continues to Grow the third year of the conference, [20] - an itsy bitsy mention of one of his books (in the SLJ review), [21] - Interview: Lionel Bender-The Ins and Outs of Book Packagers an interview with Bender about his company and book packagers.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. --Rubbish computer 14:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR. There has been very little coverage in reliable sources, and all of it seems to be passing mentions.- Mr X 14:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches returned no in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG or WP:BIO, also does not pass WP:AUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G5 -- article created by blocked or banned user — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Consulting Group[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, SPA-created article. Article itself makes no claim of notability. First 3 sources (title checked via Google translate) are trivial company listings and announcements (if they exist to begin with, URLs are all missing). Refs #4-#6 don't have in-depth coverage beyond WP:MILL mentions and announcements. GermanJoe (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two of the sources don't mention the subject; one is a social media profile; and two are apparently local newspaper articles which I can't verify. If the company was notable, and actually has notable "strategic alliances in both Europe and Asia", then is should be possible to find something on the web. The only article I could find was this, which only makes a passing mention.- Mr X 15:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone proficient in Arabic can provide evidence for notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article was created by confirmed Orangemoody sock Frankiesder; no other editors; should be deleted. — Brianhe (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G5. by CambridgeBayWeather (non admin close) (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buy1 Get1[edit]

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

Non-notable company, SPA-created article. Sources are self-published and trivial "Top x" listings without in-depth coverage. Ref #3 could not be found via Google, ref #1 is not credible either (with an actual accessdate, there is no plausible reason for a missing URL). GermanJoe (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and salt every variant of this title. The sources don't check out, and I suspect the reference to a Times of India article is fake. The Times of India article title is the same as the title of this spammy blog article [22], which does mention the subject. There definitely seems to be an connection here to an industrial sized sock farm. See [this]. - Mr X 15:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, salt per MrX, although this will probably happen anyway now it has been tagged. --Rubbish computer 17:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Datong Road[edit]

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

Only source is an IME, and it is only a side street in Shanghai. —Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Have added another source, appears to have some significant coverage by at least one reliable source. --Rubbish computer 14:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—recently added source does not meet WP:GNG as it cannot meet the definition of "significant coverage" about this road as it is about computer hacking. Imzadi 1979 → 00:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indication why or how the street is notable. It's easy to find mentions of such streets, but it needs in depth coverage, and it should be clear why it is notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of in depth coverage is showing that this place is not notable. Rcsprinter¹²³ (chatter) 19:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Can't find any significant coverage, only mentions showing the road exists. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. --Rs chen 7754 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article states "One of thousands" so what makes this road so special out of a thousand others in China ? .... Exactly nothing special about it, Fails GNG . –Davey2010^Talk 02:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of foreign Süper Lig players. The consensus in this merge is that it should be very selective any only carry the players over. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi players in the Süper Lig[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This is a non-notable list/topic, content already covered in List of foreign Süper Lig players. Giant Snowman 12:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A non-notable list that's already covered elsewhere... JMHamo (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stay I reject to remove this article , I was wrote this article , thank u :) Kurdistantolive (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why should the article stay @Kurdistantolive:? Everything is already covered in the individual player articles and in the list provided by GiantSnowman. Spiderone 14:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list is covered elsewhere so there is no need for it. It also fails WP:GNG; there is little evidence to suggest that this is a notable topic and needs its own article. Spiderone 14:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of foreign Süper Lig players. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While Iraqi players playing overseas is notable, as mentioned above its already covered in the original articles. The detail from this article would best serve being merged with the individual articles and the List of foreign Süper Lig players article. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, merging is not an option as this article falls way short of being encyclopaedic quality. JMHamo (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: I meant merging the data and sources rather than the article itself. Sorry for the confusion. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any players listed here who are not already listed in List of foreign Süper Lig players. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD EVENING , I want tell u , if u search how many Iraqi player in super lig (Turkey), how many are goals in super lig and how many matchs play in super lig (Turkey) , this is I meaning . I Hope u are understand me , thank u :) Kurdistantolive (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move - In my opinion this page should be moved to 'Iraqi players in Europe' and should include profiles of each Iraqi player that has played in Europe with statistics, descriptions etc. This would make the page more notable. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - players to List of foreign Süper Lig players but remove the photos and stats. Fenix down (talk) 10:00, 29 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Peretti[edit]

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

No claim to notability. Yes there are references, but they just prove that he exists. They do not prove that he is notable. JDDJS (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Daily Mail ref is significant, but he would need more of these to be notable.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me, with 4 documentary films or series on UK national TV. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better coverage for a better article with my searches here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. As per Johnbod, he seems notable to me, although I admit that it would be good if there were more references that could be used! If the consensus is to delete, please move it back to my userspace rather than deleting and I'll keep an eye out for new references that could better support notability here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The available references don't show that this person meets the notability guidelines. Like other editors, I get a feeling that this person may be notable, but currently, through the search engines, not enough turns up to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Si-hyeong[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 17:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable figure skater. Doesn't meet notability criteria for figure skaters. Competing at junior events is not enough to show notability.Jakejr (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG and notability for skaters. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, with no prejudice to recreation when she does compete in 2016---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ye-ri[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Junior Worlds participation Possibility

Hello,

I just found that the wikipedia articles should meet the notability guideline. As for Kim Ye-ri, she is currently a member of the only South Korean pair team eligible for the ISU Junior World Championship 2016. Is there a way to keep the article in some kind of hibernation until the Junior Worlds?

Seameetsmountain (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fixing the heading so it doesn't mess up the AfD layout. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: She does have some level of independent notability as she has done independent skating with a few short programs. Tibbydibby (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's WP:CRYSTALBALL that she'll compete at the 2016 world championships and she doesn't currently meet the notability standards for figure skaters.Jakejr (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Suppose she does compete at the 2016 Junior Worlds. If the article were already deleted at that time, what is the procedure to revive it? Does it have to be rewritten from scratches? Seameetsmountain (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment there are several things you could do to revive a deleted page, you could file for the page deletion to be reversed, you could also wait and remake a page from scratch. But the best option is to copy what is on the page now into your sandbox and work on it there. If she does compete, and enough articles are written about her to prove her notability, then you can cite those sources on your page. After that you can either ask other editors, such as the one who first nominated this article for deletion, to have a look at your sandbox and give you feedback, or you could just create the new page with what you have and see if it survives this time.Peachywink (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply Thanks for the comment. I copied the page into my sandbox, just in case the original creator of the article hasn't done it so. It's unfortunate the original creator hasn't participate in the discussion so far. Seameetsmountain (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jakejr. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, probably WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Coombs[edit]

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

I'm entirely sure if he's fully notable and if this article can be improved as the best results I found were this and this. If kept, this personal-sounding page would need improvement as none has happened since December 2005. Pinging PhilKnight who added the one source. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist, only ref is a dead link, web searches turn up nothing Kraxler (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only ref is a dead link.—Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing on the search engines to show this person's notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zerunyan[edit]

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

Mr Zerunyan is verifiably a two-term mayor and long-serving council member of a city in California with a population of less than 10 000.

I see no reason to doubt the assertions made in this article about his work as a public servant.

I see no reason to doubt the other assertions made in this article about his academic, speaking and writing career.

Neverless, I see no indication that this article passes WP:ANYBIO, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:PROF and any other guidelines and policies. Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom says, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lots of terms of praise, and listing every possible minor accomplishment. There's presumably some COI involved. DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand what the problem is. He is prominent figure in LA, everything written is verifiable and if there is an item with any doubt, let ID that and fix it. Kristina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristinaForbes (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he's as prominent as you claim, then surely it would be possible to reliably source the article a lot better than this — as written, this is resting entirely on primary sources except for a single blurb on a non-notable blog. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This reads more like a public relations brochure written by the subject than an encyclopedia article about the subject, and is resting entirely on unreliable sourcing. The mayor of a town of 10,000 can get over NPOL if the sourcing and substance is really solid, but does not get a "because he exists" freebie or an entitlement to keep something that's written like this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up some articles, but only from a college newspaper and local council coverage. There were also some brief mentions, but nothing to show they pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN small-town politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's generally assumed that a general television channel will show films of various types, especially horror films. If this was original programming by the channel then I could see the justification for a list page, but this is only a list of horror films broadcast over a specific amount of time ala TV-Guide. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of J-Horror films broadcast by WakuWaku Japan[edit]

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

Having a bunch of spooky films put on television isn't an unusual event, and this just doesn't seem like a the sort of thing that belongs on Wikipedia. No reliable sources are cited here showing that the particular nature of these broadcasts are notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 14:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Add WP:INDISCRIMINATE to the reasons already given. MarnetteD|Talk 18:44, 2 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 01:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 Years (Armin van Buuren album)[edit]

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

Fails NALBUM. (there's currently no RS so fails GNG) Widefox; talk 09:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made a good-faith effort to throw in some sources to keep this article alive long enough to make more substantive changes. So here you go with another deletion attempt? One of the two sources I provided demonstrates that this album charted on Billboard in 2006, thus it does satisfy WP:NALBUM. Here's another NALBUM-qualifying source, a magazine article this time. Please, please, please find proof of an actual CoI sock-puppet conspiracy before continuing this crusade. And even then, give us non-sock editors a chance to improve these articles WP:BEFORE trying to kill them. Metadox (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which source? and what part of WP:NALBUM? I see AllMusic (basically a tracklisting), and Beatfactor (a promo interview). In what way is that meeting NALBUM? It fails WP:GNG (crappy sources). Widefox; talk 13:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"crusade" and "kill" are quite emotive. Please can you refrain and give some indication you can follow civil behaviour here per WP:AFD, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunadeep). Widefox; talk 13:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AllMusic source, if you go to the "Awards" tab, is the source for this album charting, which I believe covers point 2 of WP:NALBUM. Beatfactor doesn't qualify for that—as you say, a promotional interview—I cited it because it was the best source I could find backing up the statements in the article's lede. I don't know enough German to judge the quality of the Virtual Nights source I gave here, but I think it's independent anyway and goes toward NALBUM. To be honest I'm not confident this article will end up being kept, but I've got it on my list of "trance articles Widefox thinks have been spammed by CoI sockpuppets" that I plan to give a good scrubbing over the next week or so. But it frustrates me when, after tracking down a couple of quick sources in order to justify un-prod-ing the article while I give it more work, it gets a second deletion request right away. So while you say WP:GNG, I say WP:NEXIST. I'm not as experienced with Wikipedia but I believe the statement "there's currently no RS so fails GNG" is not in keeping with NEXIST. Metadox (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The music notability guidelines do state that notability is not inherited by albums, so merging into van Buuren's main page might be a solution, but I don't think it's necessary. Van Buuren is a sufficiently major figure in trance that his releases should be considered notable, as each one probably contains at least one song that received extensive play. Roches (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the problems this article ran into was its failure to explicitly state the source of its notability (i.e., appearance on two national album charts). I added that to the article. I also restated the information sourced to an interview so that it is now presented as exact quotes, and not as a synthesis of the artist's statements. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janette McBride[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable former actress/talk show host. Quis separabit? 11:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough sources are available attesting to notability.--Jondel (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jondel's vote is meaningless. He has been twice accused of stalking this nominator's AFDs and "Enough sources are available attesting to notability" does not satisfactorily comply with Wikietiquette (as per WP:AFD, to wit: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.") Quis separabit? 02:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are added to establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR. Award-winning actress.--RioHondo (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from the award and film roles. Some secondary sources: PEP, The Philippine Star, ABS-CBN News, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Times (print index)-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Obsidian Soul - I'll admit some of those sources aren't brilliant but notability's certainly there, Meets BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that in my opinion some of the keep votes here are the reactive fallout from a dispute originating at the Tambayan WikiProject, and are absurd. McBride has four film credits to her name per IMDb, the last in 2006, and she has left the business (see Janette McBride shares why she turned her back on showbiz"). She does not meet the threshold for notability as an actress and to let the article stand is to lower our standards. Quis separabit? 02:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that above. Yes we know you've accused everyone from the Philippine WikiProject who watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines of stalking. Twice. You. Not "have been accused". You accused. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

Back to the point. Can you link me to the notability guideline that says only four film credits is not enough? Even when all of them are notable and one of them won her an award? I seem to remember WP:NACTOR #1 saying otherwise. And why does it matter exactly if she's retired? WP:Notability is not temporary.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? ....What the bloody hell has your issues got to do with me or my !vote ? ... If someone presents sources that confirm notability then the most obvious thing to do is !vote Keep ? ...... –Davey2010^Talk 05:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets NACTOR, sources OK, adequate credits, award-winning. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Montanabw. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:48, 30 September 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 01:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aiko Climaco[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable SexBomb Girl and Wowowee dancer. Quis separabit? 10:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW NOMINATION: Concede notability.
My mistake was focusing on her acting talents, not as a cover girl/model. After all how could someone not be notable who has such scintillating articles online such as: Why Aiko Climaco cried on Banana Split (ANSWER: Surprise Birthday Party)
Stupid Questions to Aiko Climaco (YouTube)
Filipina Beauty (Reddit)
Instagram Profile
Facebook
Where is aiko climaco? (Yahoo Answers)
Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Latest news on Aiko Climaco - Interceder.net
Wowowee dancer (chuley.biz)
"Sunshine Garcia, Aiko Climaco, and Jef Gaitan go topless"
"Like or Dislike: Sunshine Garcia, Aiko Climaco and Jef Gaitan"
Aiko Climaco (@aikolicious06) | Twitter
Aiko Climaco Height - How Tall | All Height
AND MOST NOTABLY: Luscious Pitstop: Aiko Climaco's lickable pit.

However, as I am always willing and ready to acknowledge when I am wrong, I hereby do so. Quis separabit? 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found several good sources online. ABS-CBN is reliable, as are several other sources. Just because she's a dancer on TV doesn't mean that she's not notable. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are available attesting to notability.--Jondel (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jondel's vote is meaningless. He has been twice accused of stalking this nominator's AFDs and "sources available to attest notability" does not satisfactorily comply with Wikietiquette (as per WP:AFD, to wit: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.")

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 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! 07:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RioHondo. She did start as pretty much a back-up dancer for game shows but has gained notability in acting similar to other SexBomb Girls in the past, like Rochelle Pangilinan and Jopay.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:37, 27 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saab Magalona[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable performer/personality. Quis separabit? 10:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- sources available to attest notability.--Jondel (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 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! 07:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't enjoy doing this. But the alternative is that these people get deleted. As usual, results from the first few pages of Google search, attesting to significant coverage in secondary sources that somehow the nominator didn't bother looking for before nominating: Philippine Entertainment Portal, Manila Bulletin, Adobo Magazine, Inquirer, ABS-CBN News, Scout Magazine, Rappler, The Philippine Star -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Obsidian Soul - Sources aint perfect but notabilitys there, meets basic. –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequate sources, sort career, but appears to meet GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing WP:ENTERTAINER. Has had a number of main roles, plus has been covered in reliable sources. I'm seriously tempted to trout the nominator again for nominating several biographies for deletion with the vaguest possible rationales. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Rms125a@hotmail.com please do WP:BEFORE before you nominate an article for AfD. I agree with Obsidian Soul that it is frustrating to have "justify" an article through AfD that could easily have been fixed up by yourself, or just tagged for "additional citations," bringing it to the attention of others. I feel that articles that have sources should be fixed, not nominated for AfD. Deletions create a long process involving multiple users while adding sources to an article at worst might take an hour of your time if they are the kind that Obsidian Soul found on Google. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a trout slap to the nominator for filing and AfD instead of just adding a notability tag. Fix it, don't dump it. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheska Garcia[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 10:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep:- sources available to attest notability.--Jondel (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Jondel's vote is meaningless. He has been twice accused of stalking this nominator's AFDs and~~ "Sources available to attest notability" does not satisfactorily comply with Wikietiquette (as per WP:AFD, to wit: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.") Quis separabit? 00:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, what sources -- these sources ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], et al) do not, in my opinion, although maybe I am too tough a grader, establish notability as they are mostly or wholly comprised of trivia and gossip, with some info about her husband, Doug Kraner. Quis separabit? 12:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that "trivial coverage" does not mean "articles full of trivia", right? There is nothing in the notability guidelines that classify "trivia and gossip" as insignificant coverage. And of course it's mostly trivia and gossip. She's an actress. When you Google Tom Cruise, what do you get? The important thing is depth of coverage. She isn't merely mentioned in passing. In several of those articles she is the main subject. She has also appeared in multiple films and TV shows since the 90s. And that is what WP:NACTOR requires. Her marriage only dates to 2008, her association with Kramer is merely typical media fawning over a "fairytale marriage". She was already notable long before that.- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, significant following/fan base as evident in news articles.--RioHondo (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Rio Hondo. Very obvious significant coverage in secondary sources. Roles in multiple notable movies and TV shows. Again, like all the rest blanket nominated here, here's a short list of the first page results in Google: WorldVision, ABS-CBN Push, PEP.ph, GMA Network, ABS-CBN News, CNN Philippines, The Philippine Star, Hola! Philippines. How did these escape the nominator? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't -- having re-researched Google -- I see that almost all the media coverage about Ms. Garcia is based on her marriage, children and last pregnancy, which led to her retirement from acting at a rather young age -- none of which can possibly bring to bear upon her notability as an actress -- which is the ostensible reason the article was created. (I suspect it was created for other reasons but.......)~~Thus there is no notability if her extremely truncated career consists of routine television appearances.~~ Per her own article: In 1992, she began her television career, along with her brother Patrick, when both appeared as cast members for Ang TV, until 1996." Nine other television credits are included. IMDb has 15 acting credits (and some non-acting appearances as herself on various programmes). She retired "to become a full-time mom". This does not meet the threshold for notability as an actress by any stretch of the imagination. While being a loving mother who gave up her career for her family is noble, it is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Surprising that @Obsidian Soul missed all that. Quis separabit? 00:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1992, she began her television career, along with her brother Patrick, when both appeared as cast members for Ang TV, until 1996." Nine other television credits are included."

WP:NACTOR:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

LOL. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Obsidian Soul. Adequate indicia of notability and an adequate amount of work - 20 years from and notability in her homeland to meet NACTOR. even if she's in a temporary hiatus now, having kids shouldn't instantly mean you are now a nobody. Celebrity news is always like that, more interested in personal life than critical reviews of roles. But it's still third party coverage and indicia of notability. We have no WP:CRYSTAL ball, but plenty of people return to their careers, too. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Poe[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable Filipino actor.~~Does not derive notability from father or brother. Quis separabit? 10:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

This actor has nineteen film credits, but the overwhelming majority of his article on Wikipedia is composed of his personal life, untimely death, and established, powerful family. He does not derive notability for being related to Fernando Poe, Sr., Fernando Poe, Jr. or Conrad Poe. If someone cares to create an article about this family (who seem to be the Kennedys of the Philippines) -- it would probably be appropriate. But Andy Poe does not reach the threshold for notability as an actor. ·Keep:- sources available to attest notability.--Jondel (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Jondel's vote is meaningless. He has been twice accused of stalking this nominator's AFDs and~~ "Sources available to attest notability" does not satisfactorily comply with Wikietiquette (as per WP:AFD, to wit: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.") Quis separabit? 01:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to know Rms125a. It is good you put effort to remove wiki garbage. Do have it deleted if the article is indeed non -notable but I still think it is notable. Anyway I added more sources since then. AfD may not be a full voting process but wikipedia does seem to respect votes and opinions. Allow me to comment that it always seems that the other guy is at fault. There is the onus of ever performing self examination. Here, Rms125a, you were the one of mistakenly accusing me of stalking yourself when these Philippine articles are under the radar of the Filipino community. Stalking is like somebody looking into your window, stealthily following you around for an extended period. I'm not. Your accusations are triple-fucked big time man.--Jondel (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR, multiple significant roles in 1960s Filipino films.--RioHondo (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Admittedly rose to fame because of his family name. But has independent notability as noted by RioHondo. Multiple significant roles in films.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears to meet WP:NACTOR, per above points. --Rubbish computer 17:15, 27 September 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paco Arespacochaga[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable entertainer. Quis separabit? 10:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: upon re-review and re-evaluation. Quis separabit? 05:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop being WP:POINTY and adding potentially libelous information to articles just because you feel like you "lost" an AfD, I'll be forced to take this to AN/I. You've done the same to another article you nominated under the guise of withdrawing your nomination. I get it that you feel that this is personal, but WP:BLP trumps whatever pettiness happens in the talk pages. Don't take it out on the articles. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the fuck is going on. The info you deleted and claim is "potentially libelous" was the very first one in a list of what you said were reputable Filipino websites (see below; http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/379067/publicaffairs/tunaynabuhay/paco-arespacochaga-frustrated-actor-aspiring-perfect-father#sthash.ss5PvcZE.dpuf). I added the text "Since his father was a former vice president of a production company, Paco had easy access to famous persons in the local showbiz industry – such as the late Fernando Poe Jr, actor and currently Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, and star-builder German Moreno. Thus, he had the chance to join various TV commercials and movie auditions." because you led me to believe the website is reliable and I see nothing libelous but maybe that's my "westernized bias". I did change my votes on the Arespacochaga and Bovick AFDs because I was wrong and I updated the article to try to make it better. So, I don't get it. You go on and on and on about my laziness and Western bias, but when I admit I am wrong and change my vote to keep, somehow that's wrong. I don't know what the fuck your problem is and your threat to open an AN/I does not scare me because I haven't done anything wrong that I am aware of. I didn't do it because I was "losing an AFD"; I've lost before by SNOW without changing my own vote. It's too late to withdraw the Arespacochaga and Bovick noms so I changed my own vote. And if you tell me what is libelous about the GMA excerpt which you referred to me perhaps I will have some idea of what your problem is, you passive-aggressive twerp. Quis separabit? 19:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- sources provided to attest notability.How is he not notable? I don't understand.--Jondel (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - numerous secondary sources attest to notability. @Quis separabit?. DO google for sourcing first before nominating something. Read WP:NEXIST. You do not determine notability by the sources used in our articles. You determine it by finding what sources can be used.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, excuse me -- I did a google search as I always do, and I did not come up with sufficiently satisfactory results. We all make mistakes, and I am willing to be judged by by track record on AFDs. Quis separabit? 13:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/379067/publicaffairs/tunaynabuhay/paco-arespacochaga-frustrated-actor-aspiring-perfect-father

http://www.pep.ph/news/35530/paco-arespacochaga-says-someone-is-out-to-ruin-what-geneva-and-i-had-built-after-our-failed-marriage

http://starcinema.abs-cbn.com/latest-news/thenandnow-paco-and-heaven-arespacochaga

http://www.philstar.com/entertainment/92383/geneva-paco-marriage-annulled-last-funfare-ricardo-f-lo

http://radiorepublic.ph/pacoarespacochaga-wenailedhim/

These are merely from the first 3 pages of the results, and only English-language ones. They are WP:RS, are they not? Slow down a bit and make sure that the articles you're nominating are really non-notable first. I've noticed for example that your nomination rationales reveal nothing about what you've done to ascertain that he really is a "non-notable entertainer". I know you mean well and have done well, but when it comes to notability of non-western celebrities, please do make the extra effort. Wikipedia already has enough problems with systemic bias favoring Anglophone countries. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Obsidian Soul -- I will acknowledge that I got some useful info from the sources you provided, namely that Paco and his wife, Geneva, "were married on Dec. 16, 1995 in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, when she was already a few months heavy with their one and only child." On January 4, 2011, the marriage was annulled. His [Paco's] father was a former vice president of a production company, Paco had easy access to famous persons in the local showbiz industry – such as the late Fernando Poe Jr, actor and currently Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, and star-builder German Moreno, thus opening valuable doors for him to begin his career. (I will have to check if any of this is already in the Arespacochaga article.)
The problem for me, anyway, with Filipino sources, even those in English, is that they presuppose and presume an intimate knowledge with the subject and begin, usually not at the beginning but midway through whatever is being reported, making it hard to suss out. If that is "systemic Western bias", so be it.([28]). Quis separabit? 12:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that those are reliable sources. They are sites with national coverage, independent of the subject, and do not mention the subject trivially. You don't need to know who he is. All you need to know is if he has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". That's WP:BASIC of Wikipedia:Notability (people). You can identify which sources are reliable, right? It's admittedly harder, as you can't tell which are legitimate news organizations and which are unreliable tabloids, etc. if you aren't from the Philippines, but Wikipedia should help you sort that. Most major secondary sources in the Philippines have their own articles in Wikipedia. And American websites also do that when it comes to your celebrities. The difference is that in their cases, you already know who they are. It's the same here. That should have already clued you in that the subject is notable enough that they don't need an introduction anymore every time their name is mentioned in articles. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It's admittedly harder, as you can't tell which are legitimate news organizations and which are unreliable tabloids, etc. if you aren't from the Philippines..." So true. Salamat po, @Obsidian Soul. Quis separabit? 12:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep-Just to make sure. I have to make sure since this debate is ridiculous.It is evident P.Arespochagaq is notable.--Jondel (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

— Duplicate vote: Jondel (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "Just to make sure. I have to make sure since this debate is ridiculous.It is evident P.Arespochagaq is notable" -- IS NOT a valid argument or rationale. Thanks for your honesty but it's called "gaming the system". Comments by @Jondel (who has already been warned to stop stalking my AFDs) should be stricken. Quis separabit? 12:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for double voting --Jondel (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for Obsidian Soul. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Leducq-Barome[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if he's fully notable as my searches found nothing outstandingly good with the bes t results [29], here and here. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not very happy about it. If there had been sources I'd say his achievements would had merited an article on WP, but I could not find anything except this ---> [30] and some recordings on sale on Amazon.--Karljoos (talk) 00:59, 23 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! 06:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a lack of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:NPERSON. --Rubbish computer 14:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing I could find showed they passed WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz No Problem[edit]

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

As a jazz fan, it's unfortunate to nominate this article but I simply found no signs of good coverage or even something to suggest better improvement with my best search results here and here. This has also existed since September 2005 with hardly much change. It's also worth noting there is no Czech Wiki article and given there usually are articles at their native language wikis, this is interesting but this also isn't surprising as it seems this group is not very well-known. Pinging past users Bruce1ee and Hmvh. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I too found no coverage other than concert listings and self-promotional videos. The lack of an article on European projects, most notably the Czech project, is another glaring indication that they are not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the many bands performing in the streets of Prague for money, they are ocassionaly mentioned in the media, see [31] [32] (in Czech), but the coverage is not sufficient and it is focused on the music in the streets of Prague generally rather than on the band. As a Czech jazz fan I would say that Jazz No Problem is not a well known ensemble. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this article a while back here, but there is still no notable coverage and only 2 privately released albums. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:15, 27 September 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. Michig (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Masterson[edit]

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

Non-notable and not outstandingly noticeable actress for sure but I'm not entirely sure about her modelling but my searches found nothing good aside from a few links here. With hardly much activity much less better change since February 2009, there's not anything to suggest keeping. I'm also notifying past tagger Ww2censor. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Dani Masterson" seems to be a bit better than "Daniella Masterson" as search string. Still, I can't find sources to add to make article meet WP:GNG, and the three references already in the article are dead. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; This has basically had one minor sentence of credits added in 6 years since I last tagged it for issues. I can't see it getting better any time soon, unless she suddenly get into the limelight. Even her own website link is dead. ww2censor (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well I've found sources for people who work as a: Public relations consultant, / Publicist, Producer, Social Media Strategist / Spokesman / Community Service Director - Yet I honestly haven't found anything at all on this BLP .... Not one source anywhere which is obviously because she's a non notable actress who obviously fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:03, 28 September 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 Michig (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma Anna Bae Jenkins[edit]

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

Vanity page for self-created movie. Lack notability and fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is also a book of the same title listed on GBooks, but appears also self-published. No other significant sources to support. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can offer the young filmmaker congratulations for her efforts, her project does not meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 2 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 for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Greitens[edit]

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

part of a promotional campaign for the subject , and his works and associates. Probably notable, but would need rewriting from scratch. The military career may be notable: nothing else is. the article would need to be completely rewritten from scratch. The large number of miscellaneous awards show nothing much. The politics section may be the key to this group of articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This definitely appears to be a concerted effort to get some Wikipedia coverage for he and his wife (who appears in the adjascent AfD as Sheen Grietens). Eric has a slew of Google news mentions, does this not make him notable, or is it a case of WP:BLP1E?
Keep. The promotional aspect of this wanted to make me say delete. But his books "Resilience: Hard-Won Wisdom for Living a Better Life" and "The Heart and the Fist" both pass WP:BKCRIT #1 and with two arguably books under his belt, I think he's going to qualify as notable himself. I think the best solution for minimizing cruft is going to be to merge all his books and his wife's article into one article.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - he's running for governor of Missouri, author of two books, called upon by national press for commentary, head of a foundation. Folks need somewhere to look this stuff up, and Wikipedia/Google will be their first stop. That said, I have no objection to a complete re-write. Rklawton (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simply for the presidential campaign so we'll see where the article goes from there. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a vast majority of the deletions for Greitens, his books, organization and wife seem to be a bit premature without any due diligence. With all due respect to DGG, but to say that the Mission Continues has no notable sources and then Samuel J. Howard cites coverage by seemingly every major news organization is doing a disservice to all users who visit that page with a huge "Deletion" box at the top and therefore do not trust the material (watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart who gushes over the work of the Mission Continues or Tom Brokaw's piece on the non-profit for Nightly News - I mean, how much more mainstream do you get?). Additionally, a vast majority of these articles were originally written in 2008 by Benchmark.stl, so to say that they are in response to running for Governor in 2015 as a "promotional campaign" is rather misconceived. --Chad.huber (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable as per WP:AUTHOR. TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The principal objection here is not notability but promotion. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. But as for notability, it's well established that just running for Governor is not notability--he needs to win the election. Whether this is promoting his political campaign or his books we need not determine. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just re-read the article. It's not promotional. It lists Grietens' achievements as it should, and it doesn't contain any puffery. So far as I can tell, the nomination for deletion is entirely baseless. Rklawton (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "In 2014, Fortune Magazine featured Greitens as one of the World's 50 Greatest Leaders.[50] On April 18, 2013, Time magazine named Greitens to its 2013 one hundred Most Influential People in the World.[2]" - these seem pretty notable to me. Also - "He was selected to represent the city of St. Louis and the Cardinals at the 2010 All-Star Game in Anaheim, California.[53][54]" - seems like a big deal baseball-wise. Not sure about this stuff though - "Greitens is an accomplished marathon runner who has also won gold medals in taekwondo and boxing.[56] Greitens was honored with the HOOAH Award, commissioned by the Major George A. Smith Memorial Fund in 2009.[57] Greitens was named the 2010 Reader of the Year by Outside magazine.[58] Greitens has appeared on NBC Nightly News,[59] the Today Show,[60] the Colbert Report,[61] and The Daily Show." But with the article's present book reviews and these three I just found in a couple of minutes: [33] - LA Times Review: 'The Warrior's Heart' gives a Navy SEAL's life lessons, [34] - NY Times Acts of Valor and [35] - Kirkus Reviews star review The Warrior's Heart, this guy is a Keep as he easily meets WP:GNG and may I also suggest WP:AUTHOR.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Greitens[edit]

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

non notable assistant professor. Does not meet WP:Prof: no published books, a few articles, none cited more than 19 times. This is more or less typical fora an Assistant Professor, which is why very few people at that beginner's rank have ever been held notable by WP:PROF. See adjacent afds to understand why this article was written DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with DGG. I did turn up her wedding announcement in the NY Times, which shows her maiden name as Sheena Chestnut. Does she look any better notability-wise in that light, DGG? Google book results here for Sheena Chestnut.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Sheena Chestnut, "Illicit activity and proliferation: North Korean smuggling networks" cited 66 times according to Scholar. "Sopranos State? North Korean Involvement in Criminal Activity and Implications for International Security" 19 citations on Scholar. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she just doesn't stand on her own. She might one day, but not at present. Rklawton (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Eric Greitens as I see no likely improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this page after watching Eric Greitens' livestream announcement to run for governor yesterday which led me to Google "sheena greitens wiki" which came up empty despite there being significant resources about her online which I compiled for the interest of future readers. I thought their wedding's publication in the NyTimes (some indicator that they must be of some interest to society at large) plus her work on North Korea - which is widely cited due to the use of highly guarded and unique data she had access to regarding the country, largely gained through the State Department - was cause for notability. --Chad.huber (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly created to enhance Greiten's image and profile for the campaign. She is not a distinguished academic or public figure by any measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.74.51 (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't matter why the article was created in regards to the question of whether she's notable or not. I think that mentioning that in the nominator's reasons is irrelevant and shouldn't bear on the discussion. Now that I've said that, my vote, however would be:
Merge or Userfy due to the fact that 1) she will most likely publish more work and 2) her husband may be a governor in the future. No reason to tear down someone else's work and and then have to rebuild later. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strength and Compassion[edit]

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

No evidence to show notability as a book. Editor is a SPA for the author and associated topics See also adjacent afds. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book turned into an exhibit at the International Photography Hall of Fame and was also featured on an HEC Special which I contend would count as "two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" --Chad.huber (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

appearance on a local station is not significant for notability; and what's the evidence for the exhibition? DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for the exhibition. I'd never heard of the "International Photography Hall of Fame". What I found when I googled for it suggests that it's a photo gallery in St Louis, MO, with an extraordinarily grand name. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article (which survived AfD) on the photographer says that he lives in St Louis, MO, so this will be his local photo gallery. There's no indication that the book was exhibited (an extraordinarily rare event for a photobook, though it has occurred for The Americans and a very few others). Instead, there was an exhibition of the photos that also appear in the book, as is very normal at around the time when a photobook is published. (Incidentally, the "hall of fame" that in some unspecified way is attached to the gallery is very odd. It seems to be no more than a collection of web pages, one per "inductee". That on Gordon Parks, for example, is a curious mishmash of writing in the third person and the first. "Parks has been inducted into the Black Film Makers Hall of Fame, the NAACP Hall of Fame and now the International Photography Hall of Fame", it tells us [emphasis added]. When was "now"? What actually happened? We're not told.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that this page can/should be deleted and/or consolidated with Eric Greitens. Benchmark.stl ( talk ) 16:46, 01 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I said at the author's AfD, there's simply not much. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~If the article on the politician/photographer survives, redirect to this; if it doesn't,~~ delete. Evidence for its notability is very weak. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Simplified to "delete", on consideration of DDG's pithy comment below. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Greitens as a plausible search term. Doesn't appear to merit a standalone article, but a redirect to the article in which it is mentioned is justified. --Michig (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rtoo minor to by an reasonable search term in an encycopedia . WP is not a library catalog. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show this comes close to meeting the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect, There is no significant coverage, fails the general notability guidelines. As DGG points out, the topic is too minor for the search term to be meaningful. It is not in the same universe with Triumph of the Will. --Bejnar (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. I am withdraw ing the AfD; I will remove improper material, but I ask Samuel J. Howard to add in full the references he mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mission Continues[edit]

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

no reliable sources for notability: an alumni magazine, and some press releases by the organization. Awards for "best non-profits to work for " indicate nothing substantial about the organization. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MSNBC report [36], 7 minute piece on the national Religion & Ethics Newsweekly [37], column in Time magazine [[38]], New York Times[39], USA Today[40], Orlando Sentinel[41], CBS News[42], LA Times[43].--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Samuel J. Howard: appears to have significant coverage in secondary sources. --Rubbish computer 17:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plus Nightly News [44] and the Daily Show [45] --Chad.huber (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 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.