< 28 September	30 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 Delete

Gianna Lynn[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng. Mainstream appearances appear minor and not particularly mainstream. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate assessment. Textbook failure to meet the applicable SNG, no legitimate GNG claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:00, 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. Sandstein 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Leone[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and minor gng type coverage falls firmly under oneevent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Was the subject of coverage in the Chronicle over a scandal, which is more mainstream press coverage than your average porn bio subject generates, but still insufficient to get beyond BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the accurate analyses by nom and by Carrite. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syren (actress)[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng. Scene awards no longer count Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO #2 ("starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature"). She starred in Les Vampyres, which in 2001, won Best Film at the XRCO Awards and Best Movie (USA) at the Venus Awards. Syren's Best Actress nomination for this film proves that she did indeed star, not just appeared in, but starred in it, otherwise she would have received a Best SUPPORTING Actress nomination instead had her role been minor. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources describing this film as iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster? If its just your opinion, then that's nonsense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails PORNBIO and the GNG per the nominator's accurate assessment. The "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster" standard of PORNBIO#2 sets a high bar, and demands confirmation of that status in reliable, independent sources (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Rhomberg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madelyn Marie (2nd nomination). Particular porn industry awards, standing alone, generally aren't even sufficient to establish notability, let alone the higher standard of PORNBIO2. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. I will leave it to others to parse the SNG merits. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 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. Sandstein 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Russell[edit]

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

Minor British television actor; can't find any significant press to indicate notability. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing to suggest better or that he got considerable sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show he meets either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of major roles or fulfilling any of the other criteria at WP:NACTOR. Fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to A Bailar. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Histeria (Lali Espósito song)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability presented or found and thus fails to meet WP:NSONG. Author contests redirection to album article RichardOSmith (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album A Bailar, no independent notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as always. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 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 Roku. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 12:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Roku boxes[edit]

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

This page is a POVsplit created by a user that was canvassed[1]to Roku. This seems to have been created with the express purpose of WP:FORUMSHOPPING the discussion in the yet to be closed rfc (at Roku) here. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a WP:POVSPLIT, I created it as a summary-style split aimed at keeping Roku focused and to avoid WP:UNDUE.

The WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CANVASSING accusations are unsubstantiated and have little to no bearing on whether or not this article should be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are substantiated. The link I provided links to the canvass you came from. Forumshopping though, I note I used the word seem. I wonder what the use of the word seem could suggest in the English language? The evidence again in the provided link. Now people can look at the RFC that has now been closed and see that creating a POVsplit to bring the conversation to AFD was never necessary as the closed RFC shows a consensus to keep. And BTW, being a POVsplit is the reason that it should be deleted. POVsplit, as in improper content fork. The canvassing and all was why this was created.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the list makes the Roku article undue and there is no reason for a size split. This is simply a POVsplit.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any modifications to the well-established material I copied from Roku history to create this article. If it is a POV slit then the only POV I could be accused of bringing is a belief that the material should be kept. Yes, I beleive the material should be kept. I have now !voted as such below. ~Kvng (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On an interesting note, I have not suggested that anything was modified. It's a POVfork because was specifically created to make an end run around the consensus making process. There's a great semantics argument there but I'm actually interested in talking about nothing with you. You created article lacks notability to exist separately from it's parent article. There is no actual justification for your split. There's no present undue weight. No reason for a size split. There's not even a reason for you end tun around the consensus making process. The result of the RFC as closed by an actual uninvolved editor was to keep. Funny how the consensus making process can seem to work even when there are super heros campaigned into save the day for a noob.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per WP:IINFO, and lack of secondary sources cited. Mdann52 (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing in line with RfC result. Mdann52 (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you think WP:IINFO applies here. There are many All pages with titles beginning with Comparison of articles on Wikipedia. What specifically makes this one worthy of deletion? I'm not making an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here, just requesting more specifics on why you consider this information indiscriminate; None of the examples at WP:IINFO seem to directly apply here.

I count 12 independent sources on this article. That does not square with your claim of no secondary sources. Please help me understand this discrepancy. ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article contains useful information that is appropriate for Wikipedia and supported by a variety of reliable sources. These attributes make it irrelevant whether the article is perceived to be the result of a WP:POVSPLIT or WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Lambtron (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article contains information that is useful for readers. Damicatz (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a WP:POVSPLIT (see comments above). Consensus to keep this material has recently been reached at Talk:Roku#RfC:_Should_the_Feature_comparison_table_be_restored.3F. It is well sourced, has ample indications of notability and NPOV. Allegations of WP:CANVASSING (the bad kind) and WP:FORUMSHOPPING are untrue and irrelevant to the fate of this article. ~Kvng (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roku. Consensus indicates that the table should be included in the Roku article per the RfC. While probably not a POV Split as it is neutral, it is still an unacceptable WP:SPINOFF as "[Summary style splits] must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article." This article is the embodiment of evading the consensus process:

Above discussion [the RfC] does not appear to be converging. I have created Comparison of Roku boxes with content deleted from this article. If this is not a satisfactory solution, let's continue the discussion at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that the RfC was not even closed when this article was created. Kvng made the article with the express purpose of going around the consensus-making process and to move the discussion of the content from the active RfC to here at AFD. The RfC process found consensus that the table should be included in the Roku article. Because of that consensus says the table, and that the split was an attempt to evade that very process, the page should be merged into Roku and this page redirected or deleted. Wugapodes (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question posed in this AfD is whether or not Comparison of Roku boxes should be deleted. Perhaps it would be best to address that by declaring a keep/delete preference here and then later, when this AfD is closed, creating a merge proposal at one of the affected articles (Roku or Comparison of Roku boxes). That would avoid a potentially confusing mingling of two different proposals. Lambtron (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not a binary discussion, per WP:DISCUSSAFD a number of stances are common including merge, redirect, and I've even seen userfy a number of times (but mostly at MfD). This is reinforced by Wikipedia:Deletion process#Other outcomes which shows that a number of possibilities exist beyond the keep/delete binary. Wugapodes (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did anything wrong and I have no opinion about merging; I was merely suggesting that we avoid concurrent merge discussions in different places. Lambtron (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If discussion here results in a Keep consensus, we can always do a merge back into Roku later as a separate step. Those advocating Keep should not feel like this position excludes the possibility of getting the material back into Roku. ~Kvng (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense -- it didn't occur to me that an AfD Keep consensus would make a later merge impossible. I see now why it's useful to have two separate discussions about merging (though I'm unsure about which discussion I should spent time on). Lambtron (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a reader's perspective, Roku and Comparison of Roku boxes are in pretty good shape at the moment. Edit wars are over. More discussion is probably not necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually make merge discussions in a different place. And instead of voting for keep if you feel it necessary to merge you simply just vote merge. And since the RFC at Roku ended with a consensus to keep the table, crazy enough, the material would have to go back in the article in the event of a delete vote.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural merge back to main article and continue to work it out on its talk page. No need to have this conversation in two places. I recommend keeping the discussion on topic. czar 16:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Consensus indicated that the table should be included in the Roku article per the RfC. After merger, additional appropriate discussion, if any, can take place on its own talk page. This article's creation was improvident. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep reasonable split and both articles have grown since the split. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjunadeep[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH: this articles cites no secondary sources that provide significant coverage, hasn't done that since it was created in 2006, and I haven't been able to find such sources either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; further it is notworthy that its "parent label" is "redinked" as having no article on here, as well. Kierzek (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as although Books and News instantly found some results, record labels will not always have good coverage about them and this seems to be the case. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of COI / promo sockfarm cleanup. Appears to fail GNG per effort above. Widefox; talk 01:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has existed since 2008 and despite receiving a relatively high number of edits, it's never been able to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. That being said, this article is highly suspicious. This article and a few related articles such as Above & Beyond (band) seem unusually organized and updated despite almost no activity on the talk page and a variety of editors and IPs. As Widefox suggests, this could be a professional attempt through a sock farm though I have no direct evidence to support this statement other than a precursory look at a few of the editors and the article edit history. Mkdw ^talk 03:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockfarm Yes. I've tagged some of the connected accounts on some of the talk pages. This is at least ten accounts and many IPs. Can an admin take to SPI as once the articles start being deleted then submitting to SPI is more difficult (real world intervenes else I'd attempt myself). Widefox; talk 09:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. on this article SPAs are at least the User:Trance1234 account. They appear to be clustered around Above & Beyond (band). Widefox; talk 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skyline201. Widefox; talk 08:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the recently deleted Anjunabeats article. They aren't notable enough to have separate articles however enough to have a presence on Wikipedia. 15:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.127.254 (talk)

Merge target is bad - deleted. Widefox; talk 11:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. My primary concern is that editors' unfamiliarity with the trance genre is leading them to misjudge "notability"—many of these articles admittedly need a ton of cleanup but are covering notable subjects, I mean how famous does a label have to be to qualify? Yet Anjunabeats was deleted. They have a lot of big names like Mat Zo, Super8 & Tab, or Jerome Isma-Ae. Widefox, you've tagged 15 trance-related articles with multiple improvement tags and (sometimes simultaneously) proposed them for deletion. Researching sources and writing content is much harder than drive-by tagging; give us a chance to fix these articles before wiping them out, please?! In the name of WP:BEFORE? And maybe restore Anjunabeats so we can get that into shape also? And maybe also have an actual investigation to formally determine whether there's an actual sockfarm here or just a bunch of enthusiasts? (Which until now hasn't been me, don't think I've ever edited a trance-related page yet but I will be now, so please no accusation's I'm a sock too.) Metadox (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metadox That "primary concern" is misjudged in itself - comment on content and sources rather than speculating on what other editors may or may not know. Widefox; talk 11:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox Fair enough, but, well, your reason for proposing to delete [A State of Trance] was questioning its notability and that's been basically the top trance radio show for over a decade, so much that people mutter about Armin van Buuren having too much influence over the genre. I expect most people visiting that page wouldn't bother to even question its notability, thus not worrying about proving it. And, ok, flag it as needing the references to back that up, but then please also give it a chance to receive those necessary improvements—and the more flags you drop in, the more time it'll need to fix—before mowing through the genre on a deletionist crusade. I'll relabel as my "primary concern" what I've also mentioned already: in the name of WP:BEFORE please give these articles a reasonable span of time for improvement before trying to delete them all. Metadox (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some pointers - see WP:V, WP:N / WP:GNG. (and for claims above ((whom)) ((peacock)), ((cn))) Widefox; talk 13:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "crusade", "deletionist" don't help here. See WP:ILIKEIT , WP:BURDEN and WP:AGF.

As explained - this is cleanup due to a promo sockfarm (multiple accounts and IPs). Widefox; talk 11:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metadox, in case this isn't clear, I'm waiting for a sign that not only you've understood you cannot make these WP:AGF claims, but an apology. (BTW, I was a DJ so your presumption turns out to be factually incorrect, not that it's relevant per WP:V) Widefox; talk 12:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Widefox You're right, I was speaking from a feeling of frustration and my words got overblown and strident. I'm sorry. But these misinterpretations are easy to make; one other editor has already "deprod"ed an article you tagged because they believed your sockpuppet claims violated AGF. Since I'm not sure the last place I wrote this was the right one, I'll recap it here: please (A) establish proof of a sockfarm and a list of socks so we can disentangle their particular promotional edits on the pages they've touched, and (B) give these many, many articles a chance to be improved by the improvement tags—both from drawing the attention of new editors (like yours truly) and showing existing editors people dispute what they've done with the pages and they need to step up their games. Did you really carry out all the checks listed in WP:BEFORE before tagging these pages for deletion? One of them did have a previous delete discussion on its talk pages, leading to a decision to keep. One did have an interlanguage link with a better and less spammy article on the other side of it. Correct me if I'm wrong but you never commented on any of the articles' talk pages, expressing your concerns. And on several pages you added cleanup tags and proposed deletion at the same time. And do you really believe that none of these articles are capable of being fixed through normal editing? Metadox (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding happens all the time, and check above I'm not the only one. Back to content and not editors...it's simply WP:BURDEN. Especially for BLPs. (offtopic alert: I'm writing up the dichotomy of saving these promo articles as WP:BOGOF. Until that essay is started, you'll have to check my other edits or search for the two schools of thought. Will be soon.) Widefox; talk 18:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, in reading up on keep/delete guidelines I ran across the "immediatism vs. eventualism" dichotomy at WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and it seemed pretty familiar. But I think WP:BURDEN contains support for my position in the third paragraph, saying "editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Particularly as it parallels the similar items in WP:BEFORE (especially points C.1, C.3, and C.4) and WP:SURMOUNTABLE. All of these, I believe, support the view that if an article has been recently tagged for improvement it should be given the necessary chance to do so before facing deletion. Metadox (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(offtopic - it's not that) The first SPI is linked above. Widefox; talk 08:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the present consensus is clearly to delete, I am relisting to give Metadox time, as requested, to improve the referencing. I invite those who have !voted to watch the article and to change their !votes, if they think necessary, before this relisting expires in a week's time. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There have been no edits to the article since this discussion was relisted more than a week ago. sst ✈ 12:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show it passes either [[WP:GNG] or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that given the current sources this subject does not meet our inclusion criteria. This can be revisited if he were to attain another (higher) political office or come to prominence in regional or national media. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Kyle L Lawson[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. As the mayor of a small town (population 158), Lawson does not meet the criteria for inclusion. News coverage is the standard local fare one might expect of a local politician. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are local and state. Plus more information to come from national sources and stories of the accomplishments he made in 2006 while serving in the army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylellee86 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - far too promotional, this may be subject to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Still no improvement, so delete. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional politibio of a small town mayor; fails the WP:POLITICIAN high bar. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Gene Autry, Oklahoma as there's not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of what's basically a hamlet. Definitely NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:A3 -- no meaningful content . — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand women's under-19 football team[edit]

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

No content except for a red link.--Proud User (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A1. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:20, 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. Pending additional significant coverage. Sandstein 19:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie Taman[edit]

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

Political candidates/federal prosecutors are not notable. FUNgus guy (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As yet unelected candidates in forthcoming elections do not get Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until she wins the seat. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on October 19 if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Taman is a notable public figure. She is not simply a political candidate.

• She is fighting the government for denying her leave to run. This has attracted significant media attention. The case is currently before the Federal Court. This preceeded her candidacy. • She is the daughter of two prominent Canadian figures: Louise Arbour (former Supreme Court Judge) and Larry Taman (former deputy Attorney General). • She is a former prosecutor with notable files that preceded the election. • She is not just a candidate for office - but has been described as a star candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.144.94 (talk • contribs)

On point #1: that's still a factor of the candidacy, and not something that proves that she's notable independently of the candidacy. #2: being the daughter of somebody else does not give a person an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTINHERITED; a person who happens to have one or two famous parents still has to get over our inclusion standards completely on her own steam, and cannot get extra notability points just because of who her parents are. #3: then kindly show where reliable source media coverage of those notable files exists; as it stands right now, this article is resting exclusively on coverage of her candidacy with the exception of a single primary source which cannot confer notability at all. #4: the phrase "star candidate" doesn't automatically boost a person's notability just because some source used it, if sufficient reliable source coverage of her prior career isn't explicitly shown in the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything in her article that makes her notable before being elected to office; the coverage for her to pass GNG is not there. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD should attract more participants with varied backgrounds before a consensus can be reached. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I suspect the person is notable, the article is mostly unsourced and probably violates our policy on BLPs. Dimadick (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of WP:N conferred by news coverage of PSC decision, as exemplified by [2] [3] [4]. While of relevance to her candidacy for the NDP in Ottawa-Vanier, it, in my opinion, is not notability conferred purely by the candidacy Samir 21:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The PSC decision has made little-to-no news outside of Ottawa. Samir and the anon contributor above claim this is noteworthy, with the former using refs solely from The Ottawa Citizen. If I were to be refused leave from my job to run for office and that made the local paper, that would not give me enough notability for Wiki. If you can find other, non-local sources of notability/newsworthiness, I will rescind my deletion request. If she wins, then reinstate the page on/after 19 October. FUNgus guy (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fungus Guy is correct, the PSC issue did not get any significant coverage beyond Ottawa's local media, so it's not enough to make her permanently notable in an international encyclopedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree very much that this is a borderline case. However, Radio-Canada is Canadian national media [5], as is National Post [6], and [7]. Not sure about Law Times but she has several articles regarding the firing including [8]. I'm not sure this article is as cut-and-dry non-encyclopedic as the nom and delete votes seem to think it is. Personally I think that criteria 3 of WP:NPOL is met -- Samir 23:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of unlawfully killed transgender people[edit]

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

The list fails because there are very few indications in the article of these deaths occurring because the victims were transgender. An article covering the death of transgender people generally could be written in the style of Migrant deaths along the Mexico–United States border, but as it stands, this list hints at a causal relationship, without coming right out and saying so. St Anselm (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not terribly difficult to find sources for some of these cases that specifically identify them as hate crimes. For example, Brandon Teena is an especially famous case. This article at The Advocate quite explicitly states that Teena was raped and murdered specifically because of transphobia. This article from The Advocate also details various transphobic hate crimes. This article from Time also discusses the issue and discusses the murder of Elisha Walker. The subject of transphobic hate crimes in general has been covered in reliable sources, such as The New York Times in this article, The Atlantic in this article, Vice in this article, and The Washington Post in this article. You just need to use the proper Google keywords, really. I think there's a bit of original research in the article, but that's not a reason to delete it. The topic seems fairly prominent in reliable sources, and there has been significant coverage of transphobic hate crimes recently. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But which ones are hat crimes? All of them? In this case, why isn't that the subject of the article? St Anselm (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see the article implying that the deaths are directly caused by them being trans, but it lists a source in the beginning indicating that being trans and getting murdered are pretty correlated. Either way, your criticism sounds like something that could be dealt with by editing the page in some way. In that case this isn't a reason to delete this page, but I do agree it could use more editing to be more in the style of the list you posted. Like it says in the deletion policy, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Rab V (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But which entries do I remove? All the ones that don't explicitly call the killing a hate crime? St Anselm (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a discussion for the talk page, not AFD. But as the article isn't explicitly only about hate crimes, and the definition of a hate crime can depend on locale, I'd argue that would be a poor criteria. As the article is written now, I don't see a need to only include hate crimes as well since it isn't arguing that being trans directly causes higher murder rates. It only discusses correlation not causation. There are research articles that discuss reasons besides direct causation that could put transgender people at higher risks for violence, like this. That could be used to further clarify things. Rab V (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WWIN, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unfortunately, hate crimes are relatively common and our goal should not be to catalog them. I agree with those that believe the topic should be addressed in Wikipedia and it is. Notable examples that meet WP:NOTNEWS (i.e. pass WP:EVENT) can be discussed in Violence against LGBT people or in appropriate sub-articles (e.g. History of violence against LGBT people in the United States). - Location (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most educational and highly encyclopedic. Obviously more than amply passes WP:NOTE. Quite well referenced. Nicely done. — Cirt (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt et al. This is not one of our best articles, but it is one of our most useful. I don't know of anywhere else on the web that you can find such useful, obviously important and notable information about a hot topic like this. To state that trans people are not killed because they are trans is not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As list of incidents in a defined category of crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This list is awful. Seems to be turning into a list for the sake of lists. But awful is not grounds for deletion. Fix it, but Keep User:Bastique 18:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per IAR. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list has merit and addresses a notable topic. The only odd thing about it is that unlike most lists of this sort, it lacks an "anchor" page that links to it and provides a discussion of the topic and some context. Certainly, if there's any question as to the veracity of the reports or the citations, that should be addressed separately. I would also love to see work done on identifying more incidents in the past. I suspect violence against transgender people didn't suddenly explode in 2012. On a style matter, and for the sake of transparent debate and for those not conversant with the initialisms of the Wikipedia namespace, please try not to cite policy without context and support.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:09, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAN NGxx3F[edit]

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

Per WP:PRODUCT this should be covered at the company article. Does not seem worth a stand-alone article without going into trivial and unencyclopedic technical details. Charles (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or maybe Merge into MAN Lion's City). As the article looks like now it may seem not very notable, with only mention of the 41 built for Singapore. However the product has been available in Europe since 1998, and without knowing the exact number actually built, the serial numbers had reached around 7-800 before those mentioned. So the total number built is probably somewhere between 500 and 1000, over a span of 17 years. I did not add any details from any other countries, as it was hard to find anything reliable. It appears that a lot was delivered to Spain, but I have no clue where to find a reliable source for anything from that country. Here is a list of some variations and bodywork, but it is very incomplete and is fully user-made (without any moderation), so it is by no means reliable: MAN NGxx3F (A24) on Phototrans.

However, I could agree that having a separate article for every single bus chassis model from MAN would mean a lot of very narrow articles about products that have a very narrow market. Even the naming scheme (type designation) used by MAN isn't very user friendly. When applied to the data of a bus, they even include the power output, and many people treat those as separate products, even if it's just different configurations. What is even worse is that many people, including the distributors across the world, have started using the internal VIN codes (like A22, A24, A34, A95, etc.) instead of the model names, and they are just a number and explains absolutely nothing. Anyway, it may not need an article of its own, but it absolutely deserves a mention, as busfans across the world seek to Wikipedia to learn about buses they see, ride or read about. The fact that this chassis model is derived from the Lion's City range of products makes it somehow okay to merge it in there. Then I would suggest making a section in the Lion's City article named something like "Chassis derived from Lion's City", or something similar, and then put this and the other related chassis types in there. This also includes the MAN NDxx3F and the MAN NLxx3F for consistency. As the NDxx3F article states, there are a lot fewer buses built, and in fact the article describes three different products that happen to have the same name or type designation. One of them was only built as a prototype and no serial production. The NLxx3F has, according to serial numbers, been built in around 5 000 units so far, but its connection to Lion's City is exactly the same as the NGxx3F, so letting it on its own because it is more widely known would be very inconsistent.

So to sum it up, I would like to keep the article as it is, and hopefully it will get some more text if anybody find a good source, or alternatively I accept that all three articles MAN NGxx3F, MAN NDxx3F and MAN NLxx3F (and the not yet created MAN NMxx3F) are merged into MAN Lion's City under a section about related chassis. Most of the info in the infoboxes can be discarded or just written into the other text. Those are the only logical solutions to me. To merge it into the manufacturer article as suggested seems not a good idea, as the Lion's City article is more related.Bergenga (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than technical manuals, the only sources I find are mirrors of this WP article. The two sources on the article are 1) the sales brochure from the company itself and2) a blog post. I can't do any better than that. Note that the (long) Keep !vote above is by the author of the page (Bergenga). LaMona (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I wanna keep this there is literally nothing anywhere to even verify its existence, Merging IMHO would be pointless and wouldn't really fit it in anywhere. –Davey2010^Talk 04:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is not a notable product. Deleting this article will merely create yet another red link in the company's article. (Actually, it would create three additional red links, as the company article gives a separate listing to three variations.) Frankly, that company article reads more like a product catalog than an encyclopedia article and would be much improved by the removal of its extensive listing of products. As for the individual products themselves, I don't see any notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing any signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 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. The consensus below is that this person is not notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Jack Knoxville[edit]

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

Article about a mayoral candidate, supported by a few mentions in a local newspaper. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. - Mr X 18:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office do not get articles just for being candidates, per WP:NPOL — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate for office, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first transgender politician to run for office in Knoxville, TN and therefore, this page is of historical value. Chiefchimp (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he were the first transgender person ever to run for office anywhere in the entire United States, you might have a point (although even that wouldn't be an automatic inclusion freebie, if the sourcing for it were this weak.) "The first transgender person to run for office in one specific city", however, does not constitute a reason why somebody gets a permanent article in an international encyclopedia. And even a person who did pass one of our "automatic in" criteria still wouldn't get to keep an article that parked its sourcing on WP:BLOGS and Facebook posts and the local pennysaver — it takes reliable source coverage in real media to get a person in here. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BLPNOTE, fails WP:NPOL. If the claim is that the first transgender politician to run for office in Knoxville is historical, maybe that one sentence belongs in a history of Knoxville, but I don't think so. Who was the first Irishman to run for Mayor of Knoxville? Who was the first black man to run for Mayor of Knoxville? Elected is an entirely different question. --Bejnar (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm not seeing much to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of QI episodes. Courcelles (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QI (B series)[edit]

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

For similar reasons to those expressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QI (A series) (2nd nomination). These pages consist of excruciating detail about every single episode of the show; any sources are either trivial references confirming air dates (e.g. to British Comedy Guide) or used to back up original research (e.g. corrections of facts from the show backed up with completely irrelevant, often poor sources). The articles violate policies on listcruft, fancruft, indiscriminate info and if all this were to be removed, the only thing that would be left would be a series of very short articles that contain nothing not already found at List of QI episodes or QI. I planned to ~~delete these articles~~ nominate these articles for deletion at a later date, when I had managed to use a bit more of the content for articles at the QI Wikia site (e.g. "Blue" based on QI (B series)), but a recent editing dispute has brought this to my attention again and it's clear this content just isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Lists of scores, forfeits and trivium collected in a television show, none of which has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not belong in Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC) small change: I have neither the technical ability nor the authority to delete pages at will. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this has be made to happen now. As to make up for what occurred, perhaps the layout of each Series Subpage could be done to simply state Broadcast Date, Recording Date (where applicable), Panellists, Winner, and Summary of Episode, like perhaps on other shows (I.e. Episode Blue - The panellists answer question about colour) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure you understand what this page is for. This page is for nominating an article—or in this case, a list of articles—for complete deletion. Like the page QI (A series), the pages nominated here will not exist in any form if people agree on this page that they should be deleted, so you cannot both agree with me and suggest that these pages should "be done to simply state Broadcast Date..." etc., as they will not be part of the encyclopedia any more if they are deleted. People usually use the words "Keep", "Delete" or "Merge" (moving information from deleted pages into other pages) at the start of their comments on "Articles for deletion" discussion, although this is not mandatory. (On a more pedantic note, "Subpage" is a technical term used to describe pages which have a "/" in their name, such as how "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QI (B series)" is a subpage of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". These pages (e.g. "QI (B series)") are not subpages of anything.) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ah, forgive me, I was not understanding of that, as I never done this before. Anyway, now that I do, I would recommend keeping these, but with changes. Mainly, reshaping the whole layout of the information of episodes, like that used for other Series of TV Shows (like BBC's Top Gear), or to the layout on QI's own Wikia, that I saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete all per nom. The only information contained in these articles beyond List of QI episodes is excessive expansion of "mini-factoids" from the show producing WP:YESPOV problems I noted here. I can't see how these articles wouldn't continue to be factoid dumping grounds. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I would be tricky to keep them, without someone tempted to put in facts. If I had my way, the only information would be notes about whether anything of significance happened in an episode, like a special object being brought in to show to viewers, or a guest coming in to help explain something, without putting in facts and such. Other than that, I would just put in an episode summary from some guide or such to describe what was going on in an episode. But that's just me... (GUtt01 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to List of QI episodes as essentially the same information is already there (and create a redirect for the deleted A series article too). 60.242.1.97 (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above view by 60.242.1.9, or Delete all. I doubt the notability of most of these individual episodes, and I have no doubt of the lack of encyclopedic value of these articles. DES ^(talk) 13:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of QI episodes, per 60.242.1.97's reasoning. Almost all of the information in these articles is already in List of QI episodes, yet each of them has a high number of incoming links, so redirects might be in order. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per 60.242.1.9, the individual series articles are too detailed (which are not well sourced) and a redirect to the list would serve readers much better. Seagull123 Φ 18:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like these will all be redirected. Looking at the AfD for Series A, it hardly looks like a consensus (2-1 for delete). Can an admin restore that page and then redirect it to preserve the history? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 12:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. Cyvette M. Gibson[edit]

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

COI created by subject of article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; subject also fails WP:NPOL. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Elected mayor of a city of nearly 350,000 people. That's big enough to get over the WP:POLITICIAN high bar, for my money. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No valid rationale for deletion presented, this might be speedy-keepable unless that is corrected. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite:I re-read NPOL and I looked at WP:POLOUTCOMES just to be sure, so perhaps you might better explain what you're talking about. NPOL says international, national, and province-wide officials are presumed to be notable. For "local" politicians it qualifies the presence of "significant press coverage" straight out of WP:GNG, which this subject fails. POLOUTCOMES says "Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors" and Paynesville, Liberia isn't what I'd consider an "internationally famous metropolitan area". Even if she were mayor of Monrovia proper I'd question presuming notability. The article itself reads like puffery and half the "references" are from YouTube. This is definitely not a speedy keep and I'd argue WP:NUKEANDPAVE if it were. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call 350,000 a "smaller town." Additional notability hook related to gender and age. Carrite (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was she actually "elected" mayor? The article says she was appointed "acting" mayor in 2012. I would like some more information as to whether she is still mayor, and whether she was ever elected. St Anselm (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, she is still "acting" mayor.[9] Secondly, Paynesville is a city of 400,000.[10] Thirdly, she seems to pass WP:GNG regardless of WP:POLITICIAN.[11][12] St Anselm (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The city is large enough to give its mayor notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 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 Roslyn, Manawatu-Wanganui#Schools. Never close this early but consensus is too redirect all non notable primary schools to the areas per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roslyn School, Palmerston North[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. The only references cited are an official directory entry, and a cite to the school's own web site, nor did a google search reveal any additional reliable sources which would help establish notability. We are long past the "all schools are notable" mantra, i hope, at least at the primary/intermediate level. DES ^(talk) 16:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 16:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the school's notability was challenged way back in 2007, and essentially nothing has been done in the years since to better demonstrate notability. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:ORG. I'm the editor who originally flagged the notability concerns with this article back in 2006, but I think I subsequently had the experience of nominating another school article for deletion and being told that schools were inherently notable. As a result, I never nominated this and it just sat on my watchlist. It seems that consensus has changed about school notability in the meantime, and this doesn't appear to meet the guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roslyn, Manawatu-Wanganui#Schools. Redirecting to the appropriate locality article is standard practice for non-notable New Zealand schools, as far as I am aware.-gadfium 19:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, I happily change my suggested action to redirect. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

African Economic Merit Award[edit]

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

No prove of notability. The organization brings nothing when searched on the internet. Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Zappia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Non-notable player, has not yet played in a top professional league, has not played in major collegiate league, has not played in top junior league, and has not played 200 minor professional games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosemiter (talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that he passes the GNG. The article asserts that he was an All-American, but he was a Division III designee, which fails to meet criterion #4 of NHOCKEY for not playing in a major collegiate hockey league. Ravenswing 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Lunceford[edit]

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

TV roles such as "Pretty Teenage Girl #1" and "Girl #2" in 1 episode don't establish notability. Film credits are also minor ones. Google News provides no results for her. No encyclopedic value. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unable to find sources establishing notability. APerson (talk!) 13:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Being a senior publicist does not make her notable, as nothing of note has been published about her in this role. Her acting career, as mentioned, is limited to a few minor roles. Found this article about her as a singer, but still not enough to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Edison (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only is this a sparsely edited article from July 2007, there's not much here and no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 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 into one article. Divided opinions, but there is (narrow) consensus that this is at least not worth two articles, so a merger into whichever is the more notable topic - to be determined through further discussion if needed - is the most consensual outcome. Sandstein 19:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba the Love Sponge Show[edit]

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

Also nominating the following related pages, which cover much the same subject:

Marginal notability, conflict of interest, promotional. Article was referred to WP:COIN. Overall, an ad for a shock-jock radio show. There are a few press references only because the person behind the show does things to get attention. Otherwise, not notable. Heavy edit warring, first by blocked user BRNCopyright (talk · contribs), then by anons. John Nagle (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John Nagle, I think that since you are the nominator, your nomination counts as your one delete !vote, and for this reason I have struck your additional !vote above. Per WP:AFD, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Everymorning (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Edited nomination to reflect that, and removed bulleted vote. John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @John Nagle rationale. Quis separabit? 20:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While I do not dispute the article is on the promotional side and needs some sources (and some work), it is not marginally notable. The show is nationally syndicated, previously aired on Sirius XM, and there's...uh...this. Google searches of "Bubba the Love Sponge", "Bubba the Love Sponge Show", and "Todd Clem" (Bubba's real name) bring up plenty of references to the show and to the person. There is, of course, the pig incident, that drew the highest fine in FCC history. So, yeah, there is plenty of notability and references. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Edit-warring and blocked users (and anons) are not criteria for deleting an article....just FYI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further Comment: I checked the page and the edit-warring I seen was between an anon and User:Nagle. Nagle repeatedly removed sourced content then improperly warned the anon user for those reverting Nagle's edits. I believe the edit-warring portion of this AfD should be struck as is incorrect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the edit warring I was addressing was between BRNCopyright (talk · contribs) and Kharkiv07 (talk · contribs) in mid-August which went to 10 rounds before BRNCopyright was blocked. I've been removing the channel guide which an anon keeps inserting, per WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. See Talk:Bubba the Love Sponge Show#Removing channel guide type info, to which the anon never responded. But that's not the AfD issue. The problem is that the article subject is known mostly through their own PR efforts, or is "famous for being famous". That doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE. WP:BIO distinguishes between "worthy of notice", vs. "famous" or "popular". This is clearly the latter. In the presence of promotional activity, the notability guidelines should be strictly interpreted. John Nagle (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits regarding the "radio guide" weren't promotional from the show, though. AllAccess and RadioInsight are radio station news websites. Be it format changes, programming changes, whatever, you will find it there. They are considered highly reliable sources in radio station articles. Jacksonville.com is actually the website of The Florida Times-Union. Further reliable sources include Stltoday.com (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) and Ocala.com (Ocala Star Banner). The anon's reverts aside, these are reliable sources and not a list of OR information. This is carefully sourced content.

If we do go on the "famous for being famous" line, then we would be removing Paris Hilton, the Kardashians, and Howard Stern from Wikipedia too. The first two are famous for being famous, the second is famous for being a shock-jock...just like BTLS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, in my defense, we weren't edit warring, it was all clearly vandalism. Just take a look. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's more edit warring in the history, but that's not a reason for deletion--it's a reason for caution, though. If I can elaborate on recent events, that IP reverting the nominator, that's disruptive editing: Nagle gave a reason, the IP didn't, and if they continue they'll be blocked. If I can elaborate on past events, a big problem is the "work" done by Tparadiofan, especially this edit, which reinserts complete and utter bullshit, fan trivia, nonsense, unverified content, MOS-violations, and a bunch of BLP violations to boot. I don't think much of that content is in the current version, fortunately. Clearly Tparadiofan thinks that Wikipedia is some kind of fan site, where the kind of language you hear on talk radio is acceptable. It is not.
I don't have an opinion on whether this article should be kept or not. That's a matter of GNG and of relevant guidelines--Neutralhomer knows those better than me. But the nominator has a point with their NOTRADIOGUIDE, for instance. Finally, that talk page is awfully empty, except for one note by Nagle. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, merge Bubbe the Love Sponge into the radio show article. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Bubba Clem and the Bubba Radio Network. We vote delete. Many times, over the years, we have attempted to improve this page with details and data about the man and show, we used Howard Sterns pages as reference when editing. Things his page gets away with, every time we were shot down with "this is promotion" or "im a weani nerd who thinks I know it all" ANYTHING written about us ANYWHERE is by definition PROMOTION, even though you seem to only care about defaming the man and the show. We vote for deletion. We want nothing to do with wikipedia any longer. If you cannot control some snot noised nerd editing our page because he thinks he knows us better then we do, then this clearly isnt a venue we need to be a part of. Or just keep it up as is, longer you defame us the stronger our case will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRNCopyright2 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— BRNCopyright2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Fortunately for the world of knowledge, the BRN doesn't get a vote per WP:COI. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Neutralhomer. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 06:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Neutralhomer summarizes the case well. The subject has received sufficient press coverage (regardless of whether it's positive or negative) to warrant him getting his own article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to one article and leave it be. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Keep - One article is only needed. There are reliable sources and seems pretty notable to me... - Pmedema (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this is likely best at his article and there's not much for more of a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per JzG - Not enough notability for a stand-alone article.

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. Courcelles (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mrenh Gongveal: Chasing the Elves of the Khmer[edit]

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

I am unable to uncover any secondary sources discussing this self-published photo essay. Article reads like an advertisement. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Location (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. unashamedly promotional. Hurts eyes. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that I've had to delete most of it as copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I cannot find anything that's actually about this book. I've cleaned the article up so it wasn't overwhelmingly promotional, but the problem is that this is still non-notable. There's a distinct lack of chatter about this book in general outside of merchant sites and false hits. The only things I came up with were things published by the author or his wife, such as this blog post. Anyone have an issue with me closing this one a day early? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Mrenh Gongveal also needs to be looked at since it relies very, very heavily on this self-published source. The only things it lists other than this are the sources this author used in his article. Since we can't verify the sources, I'm going to have to consider the article original research. If I can't find something else to back it up, I'm going to PROD it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed it for deletion. I've asked for help from WP:CAMBODIA, but I'm somewhat leery about the page since I can't help but feel that this is all original research by the book's author. The word he says stands for this specific type of mythical being translates to just "elves" in Khmer according to Google Translate. The hits under the name and the various spellings aren't promising since the vast majority of them refer back to Kelly's book in some form or fashion. Basically, I'm not finding much to substantiate that this entity is any different from the common elf and that this isn't a term that Kelly came up with one day in order to show the difference between Cambodian elf folklore and folklore from other countries. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:14, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Heyman[edit]

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

Has appeared in minor roles in a few short & feature films and TV episodes. No significant results for "Nick Heyman" or "Nicki Heyman" found on Google News or Books. No encyclopedic value. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. At best, this is a case of "too soon". By the way, the article's sole source, IMDB, doesn't confirm the article's year of birth, despite fact that the article is using IMDB as the source of that item. (IMDB makes him to be seven years older than the article says.) NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another example of an actor who is not significant and outstanding based from his listed work and there's no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pauli Jumma Masjid[edit]

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

I couldn't found significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Fails both, GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Even no reliable source to certify that the Masjid actually exists and not coined by the creator. Jim Carter 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why was the CSD tag removed and the article brought here? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, Kudpung, I saw it just now! Maybe it was due to edit conflict. G11 still doesn't applies however, I don't consider it to be exclusively promotional given that it's an extremely short article and by just removing a sentence the problem gets fixed. Cheers, Jim Carter 13:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. I think I should have Prod'd it instead. Jim Carter 13:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have speedied this if a GF editor hadn't stated that he didn't think it was spam. IMHO, there's nothing but spam plus the usual deprecated junk like addresses and social media. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who nom'd for CSD. Obvious WP:COI by the creator and there's nothing but WP:SPS for sources. --Drm310 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 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 Todd Slater. Not much difference between merge and redirect, but the book is mentioned at Todd Slater's article. Courcelles (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater[edit]

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

changed this article to a redirect to Todd Slater but the creator (of both articles) reverted the edit. I cannot see that there is any call for a standalone article on this collection of poster art, apparentlyn yet to be published: I cannot see how any content cannot be properly included in the biog. This is not a work of literature which can be critiqued: it's a collection of pictures and there can be little to say about it qua book other than what's in and what's not. Article is effectively unsourced (amazon & publisher's website) as far as establishing notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I couldn't really find anything out there to show that this book is independently notable outside of Slater. The best source I could find was Evil Tender and it'd pretty much be considered a SPS on here. I've removed the merchant source (Amazon) as those cannot show notability and usage of this can be seen as an endorsement by Wikipedia of the site and/or product. There are supposedly some instances where you can use a merchant source, but those are exceedingly rare and this is not one of those instances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 2015 August 29. The result of the discussion was restore article. I suggested the reversion of the redirect on the basis that this book is due for publication shortly. I acknowledge the points made here and understand, should the book prove not to be notable in its own right, the need for it to be removed or replaced with a redirect. Ukebloke (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment..."The result of the discussion was WP:BOLD-ly restoring article. This is essentially a "wrong forum" close.". WP:NOTCRYSTAL, altho I will eat every one of my huge collection of hats if this book ever becomes notable in it's own right.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not really seeing the need for such a short separate article. Artw (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need for redirect because of the name, delete for lack of coverage. It is indeed WP:TOOSOON, and may well be so for a long, long time. --Bejnar (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as there's nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 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 no consensus. two relists later, and there's absolutely no consensus here. Someone should check the Arabic sources before considering renomination. Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Mall[edit]

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

I prodded this with the reason, "A non-notable, still under construction mall. At the very least WP:TOOSOON. The article's creator contested the prod with "The mall is considered to be the hugest in the city, it also lies in the middle of an economic district. Opening in about 3 months so its not that early" - none of which matters regarding notability. Currently the references include 3 press releases and the mall's website. Searches on the engines returned nothing to show this mall meets either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2 million square ft, which , by our usual practice is certainly enough for notability. (the usual cutoff is 1 million). It's a reasonable assumption that appropriate soures can be found . DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Is the 1 million cutoff for the total area or the Gross leasable area? While the total area of this mall is around 2 million sq ft the gross leasable area(which is usually in the infobox, in this case the infobox is incorrect) is only 614,850 sq ft. Most malls don't even mention what the total area is do they? Me5000 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, because they are typically parking lots and the associated internal roads. They do not really imply anything about importance. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability and the Gross leasable area is only 614,850 sq ft well below the 1 million cut-off, so this shouldn't be kept on the basis of size either. Me5000 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of sources are in Arabic, hold up... I will add the references shortly, also its a $300 million project. Its definitely notable ^[1] --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having worked on mall articles in many countries, I note it can be a pain to source with non-English sources, but this a large project and one can see it is notable from the amount of coverage it is getting. Give Makeandtoss a chance to supplement the sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has a gross leasable area of 775,000 square feet. The normal internal non-leasable area (i.e., hallways, bath rooms, food court, etc.) would put this mall's total internal area well within reach of 1 million square feet. I have always assumed the size cutoff was based on total floor area. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - neither of the prior two comments really give a valid rationale for keeping. Size is not a reason, and simply noting that there is coverage, without providing it, and searches do not appear to agree with that statement, doesn't really make a strong argument to keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I managed to find one more source in English please check it out, as I said before you will not find much on this in English... Its costs $300 million to build, how is that not notable? --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is a stub. Tag it and let it be as there are some articles that point to it. Not outright notable but has some significance. - Pmedema (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possibly a case of TOOSOON. A $300M mall project is going to generate substantial press coverage, of that we can be sure.Carrite (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a quick search of the Jordan Times (I'm not qualified to check the Arabic sources) and a dozen articles at least mentioning the development came up. Not a great article at this time, but meets WP:NOTABILITY. Fiachra10003 (talk) 04:18, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:G5 -- creation by a banned/blocked account — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gerbacia[edit]

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

His TV and film appearances are all minor ones and don't establish notability. No matches on Google News for "Scott Gerbacia" or "Scottie Gerbacia". Hits on Google Books are merely credit listings. No encyclopedic value. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G5 as the account was by a troll-only person and aside from that this is an obvious delete as he is not a significant and outstanding actor and is obviously spending his time with something else. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as per @Skr15081997 and @SwisterTwister. Quis separabit? 15:05, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Gbewonyo[edit]

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

The subject has appeared in a few short films and TV episodes. His only film roles were minor characters in The Possession, Gran Torino and Coach Carter. The first film's Wikipedia page doesn't mention Nana or his character in its "Cast" section. Even the page List of Gran Torino characters doesn't mention him or his role. Search results on Google News and Books are merely passing mentions and credit listings. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Does not come close to meeting the notability guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. I found one substantive newspaper story about his highschool ball. Bresnahan, Mike (29 January 1999). "Cross-cultural Force". The Los Angeles Times.. I added it to the article, even though I don't think the article is long for this world. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is simply nothing to suggest he is a significant and outstanding actor with improvement to this article. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreenCloud Virtual Printer[edit]

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

Non-notable virtual printer software. I couldn't find any noteworthy mentions of it to justify its notability, other than a mention in CBS News. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No lasting coverage of notability. The news article is from 2012 and there is nothing else. One article in the news does not make it encyclopaedic. - Pmedema (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable commercial software product. WP is not a product review guide or a yellow pages for entrepreneurial advertising... Carrite (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable software, fails the general notability guidelines for lack of adequate coverage. I think CBS did sum it up correctly: “doesn't really deliver anything you couldn't do already” . --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than some links at News and browser thus no signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santokh Ram[edit]

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

If we at all find anything verifiable in reliable sources we can discuss about notability of this person. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No such indication of notability at present. Written in a too much promotional tone to handle. Mr RD 18:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject may be a professor at Jammu University,[13] but I doubt that qualifies for WP:NACADEMICS #5, and searches suggest that English-language sources required to meet WP:BASIC are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as this is another case of an article that has stayed the same and would need to be restarted and rewritten to be better if that is possible. Pinging only still active user Abductive. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The history of this article is full of different bad versions of the article, some not quite so incomprehensible as the current one but none with good sourcing. External searching doesn't turn up anything usable. In any case he doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF (according to some versions of the article, he seems to have been a university administrator but not its head). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:Vanity. Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian De La Osa[edit]

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

This actor's first role wasn't included in the final version of the film. He later played minor roles in 2 films and 1 TV series. No hits on Google News and those on NYTimes.com and Google Books are merely passing mentions and credit listings. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as there is simply nothing to suggest better here. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 15:07, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Magnusson[edit]

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

BLP, non notable bio written by SPA. Kavdiamanju (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Article's current sourcing is unreliable, and all hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search were passing mentions. If anything, it'd be worth a redirect to Team Secret—the context in which he is mentioned—but that article was recently deleted so there are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 04:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 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 deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 14:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sprayway[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable company with no reliable references. Recreated by a SPA. Kavdiamanju (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not be deleted. It has been a brand for 40 years and has some real history behind it which features on the page. The copyright alert is for information on hellotrade that is directly copied from the Sprayway website which was written by employees of the brand. There is nothing about the page that is advertising or copyright. It is simply stating facts and telling the story about the brand and the heritage behind it. (ReubenGeary (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReubenGeary (talk • contribs)[reply]

What difference is it to Berghaus, Craghoppers, Regatta and Peter Storm having a page (ReubenGeary (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I've speedied again and salted. I've posted ((Uw-paid1)) on the editor's user page since this is clearly an SPA interested only promoting this company. Note also above directly copied from the Sprayway website which was written by employees of the brand Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 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 redirect to Wayans family. Or elsewhere as later consensus may determine. Sandstein 19:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wayans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All of his credits are minor ones. Search results on Google News are reports regarding his girlfriend Vanessa Simmons being pregnant. Simmons herself is a TV personality and such coverage doesn't establish Wayans' notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Wayans Sr. likely as unless he becomes more notable later, it is unlikely this article will ever be better and as we are not IMDb there's not outstanding need for a separate article. Notifying past commenters Mrschimpf, KrakatoaKatie, Realkyhick and Caknuck. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you mean Damon Wayans? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wayans family or Damon Wayans per WP:NACTOR. Only new claims to notability are a minor movie role and an appearance on one episode of a reality TV show. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:32, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Black[edit]

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

AfD-ing on behalf of unregistered user. Please see Talk:Hayden Black: "I am very concerned about the lack of verification in this article. It lacks citations for the majority of its statements, instead linking to vague home pages for project Black allegedly worked on. The usable sources at the bottom seem suspiciously similar; the phrase "Video responses, in which Abigail’s fans pretend to have their own versions of Bloomberger’s, are posted her website." appears as "Video responses, in which viewers pretend to have their own versions of Bloomberger's Syndrome, are posted on the site's main feed." in a different source. This suggest an underlying press release to me. In addition, a major contributor to the article shares a username with Black's Myspace profile, suggesting severe COI but explaining the WP:PUFF. Direct quotes are lacking citations, and it might be best to just nuke and start over. If more evidence is necessary, please let me know." by 67.86.185.252 samtar ^(msg) 11:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Almost all the statements in this are either unsourced, do not add up to notability, or are written like promotional material. The person may be notable enough for an article, but there isn't enough text in this that is actually sourced to justify retaining it. There may be enough salvageable text for a stub-class article of minor importance, but as is, unless someone wants to fix it, what we are looking at here is a resume style article probably written by the subject himself. Muldrake (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as the current article is unacceptable and IMDb shows no signs of improvement and my searches also found nothing good aside from one podcast. It's worth mentioning this has stayed the same since starting in August 2010. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 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. These likely could have been G5'ed Courcelles (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Abha Singh Makwana[edit]

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

Nominating similar articles together:

Thakur Ratan Singh Koli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thakur Maan Singh Makwana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thakur Fateh Singh Dabhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thakur Roop Singh Makwana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thakur Jashwant Singh Chauhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The references and the articles don't prove notability. These similar articles are created by different users. NewMutants (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Thakur Roop Singh Makwana. What is going on? --NewMutants (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Baaje Singh Makwana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and
Thakur Wakhat Singh Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Added. (this one actualy has a link to Google books) 220 of ^Borg

Comment: More similar pages to these were mentioned by me at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 11#Indian emperors. 220 of ^Borg 07:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KingMandhata74. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. References are not references and, as said by Yunshui, all the authors have been indef blocked as SP of KingMandhata74. Note: a pair of IPs (106.76.132.100 and 106.78.91.166, possible SP) are tryin' to remove the AFD tags. I reported 'em at WP:AIV. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Proposer NewMutants has been indeffed as a sock-puppet. 220 of ^Borg 07:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - one of the more recently created pages had a reference to The Golden Book of India by Sir Roper Lethbridge (see this page of the book), but despite that, I'm not sure these minor royal figures are particularly notable. Mention of them could be made on the Mahi Kantha Agency article, I suppose. clpo13_(talk) 07:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui and 220 of Borg: adding Thakur Surajmal Ji created by block evading sock Randyjonn and Thakur Man Singh Ji created by Govteee.

I would request @Hermera34:, @Derek R Bullamore: and @FeanorStar7: who patrol new pages to come here and check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Indian_emperors

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restart when better or simply mention them at another article if separate articles can't be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to make a make an article on Punadra State (unless we have some such already). Indian princes were the equivalent of European nobility and were effectively minor sovereigns. However, such brief stubs are not worth keeping, but redirecting to an article on the dynasty might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away merchandise[edit]

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

No apparent notability outside the soap opera. It is merely a list of products, and a reader can't gain understanding of the subject that is in any way independent of the main article. I cant find any sources that would accomplish this, either. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 05:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of these tables can be converted into prose format. Other soap operas like Neighbours and EastEnders have similar articles – Neighbours spin-offs and EastEnders spin-offs. There is a currently a discussion to rename this article to Home and Away spin-offs. AusSoaps (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a legitimate fork from the main article on the soap opera, which is already a considerably long article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Made a further comment below. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as the next option is to merge it to the series article but this may also be argued as to why so this separate article is acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment This nomination may have been a mistake on my part. However, can we source these to anything other than commercial sites selling product? It sure makes the article spammy. Boardgamegeek at least isn't selling it, but it looks to be user-generated, and therefore not a reliable source. Even the National Library, which could be an excellent source, is just a listing. What can be done to show the encyclopedic value of the subject, for instance the cultural impact? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. All the references cited are just to seller, publisher, library and other sites that prove the merchandise exists, none of them are useable for notability. The argument about Neighbours and EastEnders is just a case of WP:WHATABOUTX, I could ask the same about a Beatles or The King merchandise article or the thousands of other popular media 'things' that have spawned 'spinoffs' or 'merchandise/memorabilia/collectables'. In fact, I can feel a Merchandise wikiproject coming on, think about all those articles we can create, "May the Schwartz be with you!"(apologies to Mel Brooks) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Massive collection of references, but as far as I can tell, not a single one meets WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all IMHO is pretty much WP:FANCRUFT!, Sources are pretty crap, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fan cruft. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My original comment above in support of keeping the article was on the assumption that the contents would be reproduced in the main article on the show if the separate list article was deleted. However, after giving further thought to WP:Fancruft and WP:Listcruft, the two paragraphs in Home and Away#Merchandise and spin-offs give sufficient coverage of this topic and any attempt to put the lists into the main article can also be avoided. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:19, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mire Hagi Farah Mohamed[edit]

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

I'm not entirely convinced this man existed because my searches found nothing good with results either being mirrors or simply unusable and unreliable (blogs, forums and including one link that seemed interesting but instantly took me to another "software" website which caused concern, grrr). I would like to believe he existed but this article existing since May 2007 with hardly any edits and no signs of better improvement is interesting especially as, sure this is the Middle East, but a 2006 death would've had at least something go into the Internet. Inviting Calamondin12. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a hoax. A 1997 Associated Press wire story, published in the Log Cabin Democrat (Conway, Ark.), lists the subject as "district commissioner for the Indian Ocean port of Kismayo." At the same time, though, holding a local political office doesn't necessarily meet WP:NPOL. Ideally, an expert on Somalia would be able to establish whether the subject has received enough notice on a national level to meet the notability threshold. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is misleading. He was only deputy minister. [14] confirms that he was vice minister of treasury in 2005, and [15], published in 2001, states that he was then deputy minister of fisheries and marine resources. In light of this fact, I don't think he is notable. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he was deputy minister or vice-minister then he's certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Elspamo. Searches did not turn up enough to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SYSTEMIC. Do you really expect there to be a lot on the internet about a minister in Somalia? Nobody of this rank in Western Europe or North America would ever be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Forrester[edit]

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

Basically seems like a cv of a person who is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Cannot find objective sources that really confirm the relevance of the subject. Sheroddy (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete unless this can actually be improved as my searches found nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Permanent under-secretary is the senior civil servant in a department, which may just about make him notable, but there is no indication of what he did in that role. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He wasn't permanent under-secretary; he was under-secretary, the rank below. A permanent secretary is certainly notable, but I'm not so sure about an under-secretary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Reliable sources not found to establish notability. He may have been under-secretary, but as noted there is very little published about him in that role. ABF99 (talk) 14:41, 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. It would be nice if one of the participants at this debate could add the sources that were found to the article and also clean it up a bit and remove trivia like who else is buried at her cemetery... Randykitty (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Parker[edit]

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

I'm quite convinced this is fabricated or at the very least very unknown as this has existed since June 2007 with hardly any edits let alone improvement and you'll the first version aas completely unacceptable. Granted, again, considering possible anonymity and obscurity, I still would've expected at least something to confirm her existence (especially if she died as recent as 2007) thus I was impulsed to almost speedy this. Pinging w guice, Whpq and Calamondin12. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is unsourced, but it does appear to be a description of the subject's real career. For example, [16] is confirmation that she sang backup for BeBe Winans. [17] lists her as working on a project titled "Special Gift" which was produced by Michael J. Powell, although it refers to Special Gift as an album and Christian Singles as the artist. Some sites mentioned her death, such as [18], [19], and [20]. I don't know how much of this article is accurate or how notable the subject really is, but it shouldn't be considered fabricated or deserving of speedy deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Definitely not a hoax. In addition to the sources listed above, there's also this link from the Christian Broadcasting Network, which describes the subject as a songwriter for Vickie Winans, and multiple other sources listing her as a songwriter of various songs. It's not totally clear whether that fully qualifies to meet WP:NMUSIC, but the subject is undoubtedly genuine. Calamondin12 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Metropolitan. Not a hoax. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm inclined towards a delete, given I've seen no evidence either in print or online that she passes WP:MUSIC. I'll hold my !vote in case someone obtains some evidence of notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely not a hoax, but just as definitely doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC, since notability isn't inherited, and her mentions are from her associations with notable folks. A tragic story, but the citations provided by Metropolitan90 don't rise to a level of notability, 2 brief mentions and 3 obits. Searches on News were hampered by the number of other folks with this same name, but did not appear to turn up anything, same for Books. Newspapers, JSTOR and Scholar turned up zero, (didn't check Highbeam, can't access it at my current location).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 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 speedy redirect to Sarah Desse. AfD placed by person involved in extensive sockpuppettry, speedily redirected to the author as the obvious solution. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Anything[edit]

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

article is about a newly released book with poor references NewMutants (talk) 09:14, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TrueNAS[edit]

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

The more I look at this the more to seems to be an article promoting a particular unit. I see it was recently created from WP:AFC. The history shows that it was accepted pending a redirect's removal. I have edited it to clear the AfC banners. If reviewing it I would have viewed it as an advert and pushed it back to the creating editor. Now it is in the main namespace I am doing the same thing by nominating it for deletion.

I have sample checked the references. Those I checked do nothing to dispel my feeling that this is an advert. Others may wish to check the remainder. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Self-trout I've now removed a chunk of what I read to be blatant advertising I didn't catch when initially commenting that I would approve the AfC. samtar ^(msg) 10:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Samtar for doing that. Now I can see the wood from the trees I see PR material in the references and nothing that shows significant coverage which is independent of the topic and is in WP:RS. I can now no longer see an advert, but I can see something that fails to pass WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would love to believe it could be improved and made semi-notable. Unfortunately a quick google of the term has so far only returned semi-decent sources, most of which are pretty promotional. In terms of my !vote here, I'd have to concede and admit I let a bad article through. samtar ^(msg) 11:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete: Per above. samtar ^(msg) 11:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam and there's nothing to suggest better improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ainvayi Ainvayi[edit]

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

Songs fails WP:NSONGS for no multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. PROD removed without giving any reason. The article has now reviews from non-WP:RS sources like SwafNews and ApunkaChoice. Only reliable review is from Bollywood Hungama; but NSONGS says "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", which is what is happening here. Other sources are of IMDb, the production house and other self-published websites. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Received numerous awards and nominations: International Indian Film Academy Awards Best Song Recording (won); International Indian Film Academy Awards Best Playback Singer - Female (nominated); International Indian Film Academy Awards Best Lyricist (nominated); GiMA Award for Best Film Song (nominated); GiMA Award for Best Female Playback Singer (nominated); GiMA Award for Best Lyricist (nominated); GiMA Award for Best Music Arranger and Programmer (nominated); Star Screen Award for Best Choreography (nominated); Apsara Award for Best Female Singer (nominated); Apsara Award for Best Choreography (nominated). Immensely popular song, so much so that the title and even imagery of the completely unrelated Punjabi film Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya copied it five years later in order to ride the song's coattails: [21], [22] (the constantly repeated lyrics of "Ainvayi Ainvayi" are "ainvayi ainvayi lut gaya": [23], [24]). The article is properly and accurately sourced from independent reliable sources; the official soundtrack info is used only to cite a description of what the song's function in the film is, and to cite the fact that the song was released more than a month prior to the theatrical release of the Bollywood film it appeared in, Band Baaja Baaraat; this information is necessary to explain the comments of the reviewers. Easily meets WP:NSONG. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. And what you are giving here are facebook, youtube, lyricsmasti.com, fatherandsonfilms.com which are far far far far lacking in being WP:RS. Same with IMDb, Apunkachoice and swafnews used in the article. Just bring neat articles from newspapers which talk about the song only and not just one or two lines stuffed in a big essay about the film and how the actress was bubbly and cute in it. And btw, those references to awards haven't also bothered to elaborately speak about the song. They have just stuck up a big picture of actor-actress and have written one liner "Sunidhi Chauhan for Ainvayi Ainvayi, Band Baaja Baraat." Just one line. That too isn't clear if she won it or was nominated or what! They didn't even bother sticking up the picture of the person in subject, i.e. the singer. Seems they are just trying to get page hits on the actor's face value. This kinda rubbish reference, even if coming from Hindustan Times, is waste to claim notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read my comment correctly. I have not listed "facebook, youtube, lyricsmasti.com, fatherandsonfilms.com" as reliable sources anywhere. In terms of the song article under discussion: Multiple awards and nominations (at least one win and at least nine nominations), listed as a Top 10 of 2010 by The Telegraph, and multiple other Top Tens and other accolades in various other independent sources, equate to WP:NSONG. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read it correctly and that from where we can see you adding 4 external links to those green "reliable sources". You have used similar quality of references in the article as well. Btw, see WP:CHARTS; none of the Top NN charts you are listing are included in there. We do have systemic bias in here that none of the Indian song charts are listed at WP:CHARTS (or probably none are notable) and that's hence not fair to dismiss your listings. But then you have to prove to us why these charts are notable. And you have still not read/understood what WP:NSONGS wants. "NON-TRIVIAL" is not a superfluous word in there. We have plenty film awards and despite winning so many nominations and awards you fail to bring in a single good source which talks about the song.
Side note: Try WP:QUOTEFARM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added citations or WP:ELs to any of those 4 links; please stop saying and implying that I have done anything of the sort, anywhere concerning this article. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The very first ref you added to the article was IMDb. Then you went on to add Swafnews and ApunkaChoice. And others you added in this AfD in your keep rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhyaksha, you're twisting your own words around. You wrote, and I quoted, "facebook, youtube, lyricsmasti.com, fatherandsonfilms.com"; you again typed "those green 'reliable sources'"; I stated I had never added citations or WP:ELs to any of those 4 links and asked you to stop saying and implying that I had; you are changing your own claims and words into something completely different. I'm done with this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you are using these 4 in the article. But you are using these 4 in this AfD and the other 3 in the article. Irrespective of the page domain, a non-RS is non-RS and it can't be used to establish anything anywhere; article or AfD. You are the one picking up wrong twigs and sidelining that NSONGS wants non-trivial mentions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to have to agree with the nom on this one. The lack of RS kills this one. Without those RS, it fails WP:NSONG, and I can't find them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Times (four citations), Bollywood Hungama (three citations); The Telegraph; Koimoi; one major win and nine major nominations; Top 10 of 2010 (and several other Top 10 lists); top 21 songs of the past 100 years? Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article lacks significant coverage in RS and fails WP:NSONGS. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Times (four citations), Bollywood Hungama (three citations); The Telegraph; and Koimoi; are all RS. One major win and nine major nominations; Top 10 of 2010 (and several other Top 10 lists); top 21 songs of the past 100 years. Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: That you have already mentioned above and argued for the same with @Dharmadhyaksha:. You don't need to write it again and again. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do when people keep saying there are no RSs, because these obviously are RSs. Softlavender (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the deletion !vote reason. @Softlavender: Coverage in depth about the subject in reliable sources is needed to stand it alone. The sources you are talking about doesn't have significant coverage about the subject. In addition, I doubt if Bollywood Hungama is a reliable source. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you carefully re-read the first sentence of WP:NSONGS, you'll see it does pass. "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject^[2] of multiple, non-trivial^[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label."

References

^ http://www.maqar.com/?id=70235
^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.
^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way affiliated with any third party source.

Per the statement and the footnotes, "significant coverage" is not required; only non-trivial; and obviously this qualifies:

The Telegraph of India named the song one of the 10 best Bollywood releases for the year 2010, stating that "Buoyed by the lead pair’s youthful energy, this one really got the feet moving."[25] Hindustan Times, which called the song a "fast-paced dance number with electrifying beats",[26] listed it as number 6 in the Top 10 songs of the week of 9 January 2011,[27] and cited it as one of the Top 10 caller tunes of 2010 as compiled by Airtel.[28] In 2013, it was one of the 21 songs included in "Apna Bombay Talkies", a music video and film song celebrating 100 years of Indian cinema.[29][30]

Not to mention it additionally meets WP:NSONGS by "#3 Has won one or more significant awards", by winning an International Indian Film Academy Award. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#3 Has won one or more significant awards, can you provide a reliable source which mentions, that Ainvayi Ainvayi, has won International Indian Film Academy Award? Softlavender, there is no end to argumentds and this is what you are doing again right her on Afd. About WP:NSONGS @Dharmadhyaksha: has already clarified above. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources for the IIFA award are all in the article. The win is not in dispute. Softlavender (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its like you are confused about the award. Well, as per not only me but also the sources there it has mentioned that the person who has recorded the song has own that particular award you are talking about and not the song and there is huge difference b/tn what you are trying to bring here. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disclosure: My opinion was sought here. ~~The Telegraph article is a paragraph about the movie, not the song~~_{struck by/at —SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)}, Airtel hellotunes isn't something that has any significance, that it was included in a music video is also not of any significance. In the final analysis there isn't any significant awards for the song itself, multiple non-significant awards yes, and the coverage on HT is web-promo stuff that is a feature of their website as opposed to the print edition. —SpacemanSpiff 16:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: You're mistaken about the Telegraph article. It is not about the movie, it is a list of their Top releases of the year, and if you Control+F "ainvayi" you'll see it has a distinct entry in the list, unrelated to the film. Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck that part of my post, I missed that second paragraph while reading through. It doesn't change my analysis though. —SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have said enough already but i am again here to clarify one thing. Softlavender is claiming here in the AfD that the song is in "top 21 songs of the past 100 years" and i really had to see which critic in their right sense kept it in "top 21" from the 100 years of Bollywood music span. Well, turns out that the reference, a promo-video btw, actually says that the song is used in the song "Apna Bombay Talkies", which is a medley of 21 Bollywood songs. It does not claim to be the medley of "top 21" songs as such. Anyone with mediocre knowledge of Bollywood songs would also agree with me that a medley of top 21 songs of Bollywood can never be prepared by excluding creations of Rafi, Kishor Kumar, Asha Bhosle, RD and SD Burman, Naushad, Shankar Jaikishan, OP Nayyar, Shailendra, Ludhyanvi and many such stalwarts of Bollywood music. ABT is merely a collection of 21 songs, most probably selected only from modern songs, the oldest being "Hawa hawaii" from 1987's Mr. India and many critics agree that the Golden age of Bollywood lasted only until 1960s. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note on COI sources: The film Band Baaja Baaraat's media partners were Radio Mirchi, a subsidary of the The Times Group. They also launched a "Shaadi Aapki, Kharcha Humara Contest" (Win a Free wedding) See this youtube video 0.14s shows media partners as Radio Mirchi and Big Cinemas and others. In such case, should promotions, reviews or spending 38 weeks on top 20 songs list be considered conflict free? Especially when there is no clarity on how the Top 20 list of Radio Mirchi is made? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:36, 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 no consensus. May need renaming, but that's an editorial decision. Sandstein 09:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kunzea sp. Wadbilliga[edit]

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

Recognized species in general are assumed notable, but the subject of this article may fail verifiability and notability through lack of reliable sources. The article says this is "informally recognized" and it "is yet to be scientifically described and named." It does not appear at all in 3 of the four references, at least under the name Wadbilliga. The only ref listed which mentions it is "PlantNET - NSW Flora Online" whose home page says "This site is to be regarded as a prototype presented as a demonstration, and not necessarily as an authoritative resource." Perhaps someone can find better references. Edison (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the taxobox, for lack of formal recognition (yet), but I don't see a need for the article to be deleted. I noted one ref as a deadlink, but added another that is similar for verification (it took some searching). The name Kunzea "Badja Carpet" is that of the formally recognised cultivar, and will be a redirect when I remember how we render these as page titles. This situation is very common in some genera, and these names are used while they await a formal description. PlantNet is not an authority for botanical nomenclature, as reiterated above, but it serves to help confer notability. cygnis insignis 03:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the cultivar seems to have some non-trivial coverage. The fact that the naming is not yet official shouldn't be a barrier to having an article in cases where secondary coverage can be shown to exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this title, and maybe move relevant content to Kunzea 'Badja Carpet'. The cultivar seems to be derived from what is perhaps an aberrant wild population of Kunzea capitata (said population apparently not having been given a scientific name in the 41+ years it has been known). It's not good practice for Wikipedia to include article on undescribed species of organisms (the argument to keep rather than delete of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is predicated on the species being described scientifically). The Badja Carpet cultivar has gone through the appropriate publication steps for a cultivar name, but not a species name.Plantdrew (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Kunzea 'Badja Carpet' which seems to be the name that it is known under. Scientific nomenclature should not be used without reliable sources. For use of the name "Kunzea ‘Badja Carpet’" in reliable sources see,e.g., here, here and here. I agree with editor Plantdrew's reasoning, and renaming accomplishes what he suggests. Remove the resultant redirect, as WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note. Could somebody please clarify the suggested new name? Is the intent that the article title include the quotes? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Including single quotes is intended, as that is the convention for plant cultivar names (see Cultivar#Cultivar_names). Plantdrew (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Dark Tower characters#North Central Positronics. Consensus is not to retain this as an article. The extent to which any content should be merged, and the eventual redirect target, is up to editorial consensus. Sandstein 18:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Central Positronics[edit]

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

This article is entirely plot summary. There is no discussion about how this fictional company has had a real-world impact, and no indications of notability separate from the work of fiction in which it appears. It was recently redirected to The Dark Tower (series), which is the series in which it appears, but someone reverted without changing the article at all. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise restore the merge and redirect. BOZ (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Apparently, there used to be a whole lot of stand-alone articles on people, places and things from the Dark Tower series but, over time, they got corralled into a single fancruft page List of The Dark Tower characters. The instant article somehow missed the round-up. I've copied the material from the instant article into that fancruft page (see the diff here). I also re-directed all of the links to the instant article to the fancruft page. (There were only a few and I've kept a list of them -- if this proposal ends up in a 'keep', I'll change the links back.) So, all that really needs to be done is to turn the instant article into a re-direct to List of The Dark Tower characters#North Central Positronics. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. No sources to why it is important outside the book series. shoy (reactions) 12:38, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charu Shankar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although there are some results, there's nothing recent or good enough to suggest better sourcing and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 12:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin's Dragons[edit]

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

I simply found nothing to suggest better improvement with the best results here and there's no good move target. Notifying author Hyphz and recent editor McGeddon and I would've also notified Elembis but they're obviously not very active. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like fun, but I can't really find any true coverage for this game. It exists, but that doesn't give notability in and of itself. If the game maker or his company (R&D Games) had an article on Wikipedia I'd suggest a redirect, but neither one does and I'm not entirely certain that they'd merit one, although I haven't done an exhaustive search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game was the Game of the Year in 2001 Games 100,[31] nominee of 2001 International Gamers Awards (General Strategy - Multi Player),[32], nominee of 2003 Nederlandse Spellenprijs,[33], and got 9th place in 2000 Deutscher Spiele Preis.[34] The game looks notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Bharatiya29 (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bharatiya29. BOZ (talk) 10:45, 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 speedy delete. G5, as pointed out at the end. Sandstein 19:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association single-postseason series scoring leaders[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, with no reliable sources that discuss this grouping. This is comparing scoring averages in a single series, but is not discriminating about which series gets included. Mixing apples with oranges. I've never seen this in RSs for the NBA. Moreover, even a mega stats site like Basketball-Reference.com has nothing like this there. A list of leaders from an entire postseason might be notable, but not a mixed bag like this. Nothing can be preserved by renaming, so the only option is to delete. —Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem retaining this article, though I won't aggressively fight for its existence. I think it contains interesting information, and besides I've seen lists like this before. For example, see

The Official NBA Basketball Encyclopedia. Villard Books. 1994. p. 400. ISBN 0-679-43293-0.

which lists the top several entries as does the link at [35]. Note that some of this information is effectively replicated at NBA post-season records (as records for series of different lengths), so nothing too important is riding on this discussion. — Myasuda (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there only exist stats lists and not prose in sources, I'd argue it's a case of WP:NOTSTATS, without any substantial benefit to apply WP:IAR. As you mentioned, NBA post-season records already exists and lists the No. 1 entry for all records, so it wouldn't fit to merge it there either to expand it with the non-records.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue if you don't like the prose and style of the argue, clean it up, contribute and make it better. Rather than try to get it deleted. Actually contribute something, rather than try to destroy everything others created.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination cited WP:LISTN, a Wikipedia guideline. Feel free to demonstrate that it is met. Nobody said the article was WP:UGLY.—Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up prose though? It lists just stats but no prose. Ate you suggesting that if I was to add some prose to it, that it is acceptable? If that is the case, if that is what you are saying, then I think simply adding prose is more beneficial and less time consuming, than nominating for deletion and going through all of this arduous process and debate.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If there only exist stats lists and not prose in sources ..." Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If I as an NBA fan don't have a clue what is being listed here, you know a title has problems. WP is not the place for every conceivable sports records list, let alone those which are difficult to conceive. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete criterion WP:G5. Creator and most significant contributor is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meggan Mallone[edit]

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

Fails pornbio as only nomination and clearlybfalls short of the gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets PORNBIO & GNG - As always this !vote has nothing to do with looks!..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Translating that for the closing admin, Davey thinks she is hot and therefore voting keep on that basis but is ashamed to admit it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying absolutely nothing *cough*. –Davey2010^Talk 14:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only nominations, no awards. No nontrivial independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vivid_Entertainment#List_of_Vivid_Girls - Without having done a huge amount of research on the subject under discussion here, it appears that the most notable thing that Ms. Mallone has done during her career was to be named as a "Vivid Girl" under an exclusive contract with Vivid Entertainment. Guy1890 (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much demonstrates that she's not notable, doesn't it? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both the PORNBIO and GNG. Her only real claim to fame was a short stint as a Vivid contract girl. While they have built several of their stars into big stars with the industry, there have been just as many who have had rather unremarkable careers. Malone falls into the latter category. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 23:52, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna Lynn[edit]

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

Scene awards no longer count so now fails pornbio as well as gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets PORNBIO & GNG, I should point out this !vote has absolutely nothing to do with looks!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words - this is a HOTTIE vote and should be discarded. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I think it'd be extremely worrying if an admin didn't disregard it although it'd be nice if it wasn't for once . –Davey2010^Talk 13:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate assessment and the lack of policy-based argu,emts for retention. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete My sweeps did not turn up much, although one of the sources seems headed in the gng direction.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom's accurate assessment. Just another inasequately sourced, promotionally toned BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - You've already !voted above - Don't worry it happens to us all . –Davey2010^Talk 14:30, 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 redirect to David Martin (governor). Courcelles (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir David Martin Foundation[edit]

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

I can't find any substantial coverage of this organisation in reliable sources as required to meet WP:ORG. Current references are either primary sources or brief mentions. (The main author has disclosed that they were paid to write the article). SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject with actual depth]. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Martin as my searches found nothing better than some Books and Highbeam links but moving to his article seems best rather than simply deleting. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The Complete History[edit]

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

Non-notable part work. Nthep (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, its just as notable as any other partwork, published by Hachette and Panini, two of the biggest publishers and about Doctor Who a big entertaiment franchise. Whats so non-notable about it? Many other partworks of its kind have their own page so why shouldn't this one? Matt14451 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading WP:NBOOKS and come up with some sources that describe why this particular Dr Who topic is notable. Just because Dr Who is a notable subject doesn't make every individual article associated with it automatically notable. All I can find are press releases about it and some blog posts. Nthep (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that just because its Doctor Who it deserves an article, its a note worthy partwork just like any other which has an article. Matt14451 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose giving it a stay of execution, at least for the time being whilst discussion on the talk page is ongoing. For my part, I have submitted proposals for the future of the article but it needs discussion before a consensus is reached. But, in its present state, I agree with the nomination. Aw16 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice. Regardless of the assertions above, there is no citation demonstrating significant coverage in secondary sources, so this is not ready to be a Wikipedia article. If at some future time this work gains some attention and coverage that can be verified, a page can be created then. Recommend article creator place a copy on their sandbox if s/he wishes to save any information. -Markeer 23:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. no reliable sources available for notability. maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON, argument by article creator about other partwork articles (please list them so we can look at them:)) doesn't hold up ie. WP:WHATABOUTX. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list include, The Official Marvel Graphic Novel Collection, DC Comics Graphic Novel Collection and Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to withhold from voting on this, but intead I'll say this: whatever happens here in this AfD may very well affect all the articles in Category:Partworks (especially since it was expanded from one article in question to four). If you do choose to delete this/these article(s), you better be prepared to justify why they should be removed, and the others can stay. --JB Adder | Talk 04:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just four articles, it all of those in the catagory you mentioned. Matt14451 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment If this or other articles fail to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, including general notability, citation, requirement of secondary sourcing (I highlight this as I note a great many primary footnotes on these articles) or verifiability, then that IS the justification for a consideration for AfD. Expecting an article to follow the same guidelines that apply to every single article is not a negative trait. -Markeer 23:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of which I am fully aware. I should apologise for making my comment sound like a foretelling of doom. Granted, in a sense, it is, especially for the Partworks category itself, which may very well die after this AfD. But I also know this AfD could be taken as a grand sweeping argument for removing/keeping the partworks articles wholesale. --JB Adder | Talk 02:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partworks are a staple of British magazines, they are seen in most newsagents, as should definitley stay apart of Wikipedia. I believe that they should, including this one, should stay. Matt14451 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not really much of a Wiki-editor (I only change the odd typo here or there, and very infrequently at that), but I'd just like to say I think this article will probably become notable given time - it does feel like it's been put up just a bit too early though. But since it's here now, give it (and the part-work collection) a chance to grow before voting on its deletion? KoopaCooper (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this table will grow every fortnight with more information, plus possible specials and information. Matt14451 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more needs to be said, more information will be coming soon so that the table will have at least 80 rows full of information. Matt14451 (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's still no reliable, independent sources about this publication other than merchandising press releases and blog posts. That it exists is not in question but there is still nothing coming forward to say that this is a notable publication. Nthep (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll have another look. Matt14451 (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like a decent article to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelshWonderWoman (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've held off from voting until now to see if any improvements have been made to the page. It is clear that there have been no clear improvements in finding external references and also little improvement in content beyond a simple tabular list. It's my opinion that this subject can be easily covered in the article of its parent publication, Doctor Who Magazine, at least until the list of issues/volumes exceeds a sensible amount. Then we can think about beginning a page entitled "List of issues of Doctor Who - The Complete History". But as it stands, I don't think the article holds enough merit to be considered as a standalone. Most definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Aw16 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it just doesn't have the coverage for notability. I think editor KoopaCooper's remarks above show, that as editor Aw16 also concluded, it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanagala[edit]

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

Least Important and it is a village not known to anybody . No information available and not fit to be a article KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information beyond the census listing. Could be kept if some significant local sources are found. LaMona (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately delete as there are actually quite a few of these and they're still being started but there's simply no good sorucing even minimally to suggest improvement. Geographic places usually pass with WP:NGEO but there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable..." This village has a population of 7,192, which is documented and legally recognized by the government of India, as per the official Census of India. Also keep as per WP:FIVEPILLARS, because Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 22:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have to keep this stub as per existing guidelines provided above. --Bhadani (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all villages are notable per WP:GEOLAND, and there is no reason to delete - the government of India knows of this village and its 7000 people disproving the nominator's statement to the contrary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should have been a speedy keep as soon as NA1000 posted his link to an Indian government website demonstrating that this is a recognized village for national census purposes. Being held over once was unnecessary, twice was flat out bizarre. Click the link and we are done per WP:GEOLAND. Bad nomination and lame debate facilitation... Carrite (talk) 15:43, 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. Sandstein 19:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Program for Research In Mathematics, Engineering and Science (PRIMES)[edit]

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

Delete does not have stand alone notability. A redirect might be appropriate but in current form article seems more to promote then inform. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following changes have been made to the article:

A link to Honors and Awards page has been removed to eliminate the appearance of promotion.
Links to two articles in major U.S. newspapers have been added.
A link to an interview with a PRIMES alumna has been removed, and replaced with a link to an MIT News report.
The list of references includes a detailed article about PRIMES in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, a peer-reviewed publication of the main U.S. professional society of mathematicians. PRIMES is the only research program for high school students ever featured in a separate article in the Notices of the AMS.

Dodecahedronic (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references in the Boston and Philadelphia papers mention the subject only in passing, and certainly don't provide the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. I've yet to see persuasive evidence of the subject's notability. Ravenswing 00:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Philadelphia Inquirer articles are about the success of students whose work was done entirely in PRIMES, even if PRIMES is mentioned only once or twice. This can be established by looking at the acknowledgements section of their research papers.

Also major newspapers never publish articles fully dedicated to math research programs. This does not mean that these programs are not notable. There is also no significant coverage in the media of the other major math programs about which Wikipedia has articles, i.e., Canada/USA Mathcamp, Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics, PROMYS, which are much older than PRIMES, and would presumably have had more time to be covered. These articles all appear to be the same in terms of notability.

E.g., there are 75 papers written by PRIMES students, 16 of them already published in major peer-reviewed math research journals. These papers are entirely based on the work done in PRIMES (even if PRIMES is mentioned only once in them, in the acknowledgments). Would it help if links to them are added?

Also even though PRIMES is not yet 5 years old, it already has 70 alumni, who are now undergraduate and graduate students at top US universities. And PRIMES students took all the top basic research awards in the Intel Science Talent Search 2015.

Also please refer to the PRIMES report http://math.mit.edu/research/highschool/primes/materials/PRIMES-Cumulative-Report.pdf for additional detail on the program, and as a further argument in favor of notability.

A Wikipedia article about PRIMES would be useful for many people interested in mathematics, in terms of both education and doing research. Dodecahedronic (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even as I am not in the USA, and not member of any of the related institution, I have heard of this program, that's why I think that it may be notable enough, and I accepted it. But it may need more or better sources. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note A new source was added, which links to an NSF award grant for the program. Dodecahedronic (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I strongly recommend you review WP:GNG and WP:ORG, the notability guidelines bearing the most on this AfD. The fundamental criterion for a subject's inclusion in Wikipedia is simple: it must have received non-primary "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. The fundamental policy behind them -- WP:V -- is likewise simple: all material, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable to a published, reliable source. That coverage must be about the subject: a source which is about other people or things connected to the subject doesn't count. That's the definition of "notability" on Wikipedia: whether the world has heard about something or not.
That PRIMES students have written papers is irrelevant; those wouldn't constitute reliable sources about PRIMES. That PRIMES alumni are undergraduate and graduate students is not only irrelevant, but unimpressive -- the same could be said about many a high school football team. That you or anyone else may have heard of the program is irrelevant -- to quote WP:V, "[Wikipedia]'s content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." And, certainly, if you've identified other such articles that lack proper sources, they're just as eligible to be taken to AfD. (That being said, two of the articles you claim to not have proper sourcing do; publications such as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Harvard Crimson, Toronto Globe and Mail, and the Notices of the American Mathematical Society absolutely qualify.)
Finally, we're exhorted all the time at AfD to keep an otherwise non-qualifying article because it would purportedly be "useful" to this group or that. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional website, and the best avenue to promote it would be on MIT's own website ... which, I see, it does. Ravenswing 03:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply All articles mentioned above, including the PRIMES article (not just two) satisfy the notability criteria, that's why they were accepted. PRIMES is the only subject of the feature article in the Notices of the AMS, which you say "absolutely qualify". This article was accepted by a body independent of PRIMES and MIT. Likewise, there are two links to the NSF public website devoted to PRIMES (one of them a highlight); obviously, NSF is an independent source. Whether "70 alumni, who are now undergraduate and graduate students at *top* US universities" (49 of them at Harvard and MIT alone, see https://math.mit.edu/research/highschool/primes/alumni.php) is "unimpressive" is an arguable point. What is not arguable is that " the same could be said about many a high school football team" - this is clearly not the case. Dodecahedronic (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sorry, but press releases to sites don't count. Neither do, of course, any links to MIT. You may also be confused as to how articles get onto Wikipedia in the first place; in the cases of those other three articles, they were just put up by the creating editors, and went through no vetting process at all. In the case of this article, I am rather dismayed to find that you attempted to submit it through Articles for Creation, only for it to be rejected five times -- [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] -- before being added by an editor who admits above that he had no basis for doing so other than that he'd heard of the program. I recognize that you have been trying to get this article onto Wikipedia for over a year and a half -- doing so is pretty much your sole Wikipedia activity -- but this program just doesn't qualify for an article, no matter how much you want it to do so. Ravenswing 15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not notable, Not enough evidence for notability and very unlikely to be notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's based at MIT says something. I'm leaning somewhat toward Keep. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what guideline allows inherited notability based on association unless you refer to WP:IAR Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, inherited notability is explicitly disallowed. There are a great many things based at MIT, including student clubs, lectures, academic departments and the school janitors. We don't, thereby, have articles on the university's intramural water polo matches, the Student Art Association or the MIT Anime Club. Ravenswing 02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to @User:Dodecahedronic. I noticed in this diff here that you used the word "we" when discussing your actions. Are you more than one person? And considering that this article seems to be the only one you've edited in your eighteen months on Wikipedia, are you connected with the program in any way? NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find enough on the search engines to show it passes WP:GNG. The fact that it's a non-notable program based at a notable university is irrelevant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while a program's non-Wikipedia reputation may be significantly created by the work done by its participants, Wikipedia notability is not inherited up or down. If a program has developed a significant reputation it will be written about in its own right (qua propria persona) in independent, reliable secondary sources. The AMS article in a peer-reviewed journal is a good source for verification, but since the authors are all intimately invovled with this MIT program, it cannot be considered an independent source. While receiving mentions, the topic fails for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metu Uchenna Ifeanyi[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the clubs he's played for appear to be fully professional. And the only sources I've found on him are just stats and player pages. Nothing in the news. Definitely falls afoul of WP:NFOOTY. clpo13_(talk) 09:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not one of the clubs that he has played for even appears to be notable (let alone playing in a fully professional league) Spiderone 18:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 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 keep. WP:DENY Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baitbus[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia Notability NewMutants (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deji Olatunji[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish his notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social media. The subject of the article may be notable on YouTube but fails our notability criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Article's sources are largely YouTube postings. Except for the one from TheNetWorth.com, for which note the legal disclaimer at the bottom of its page -- "We don't guarantee accuracy ...". NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge to subsection on the KSI article (apologies to him). KSI has 10 million subs, this guy has 5 million subscribers - but only one passing mention on Google News - fails google test. The news media hates youtube personalities (Felix Kjellberg was given an "X" in Variety magazine etc) because youtube personalities are taking their audience and revenue. Seems like he spends most of his time making money on youtube without ever talking to journalists. If information about him gets published in reliable secondary sources that aren't financially linked to him (or just promotional outlets) then it would be worth an article on him, but until then, should just be deleted, and maybe a line on him in the KSI article. -- Callinus (talk) 12:54, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Baker (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

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

Being the second oldest man in Scotland is interesting but not sufficient for notability. All the sources are basically obituaries and just routine coverage that would follow from his death. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even the oldest Scotsman (Frank Saunders, also 106) doesn't merit an article, since neither were even supercentenarians (not that that would be notable by itself anyway) or satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of similar obituaries do not satisfy WP:BIO and there is no inherent notability for reaching the age of 106 or being the second oldest man in a country. Edison (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Colin Partridge[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG~~ Flat Out (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - sourced content added post nomination supports notability per WP:PROF. Flat Out (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Simply not notable. scope_creep (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2015

Comment: Exactly how is someone who is a full professor of medicine and holds a named chair at "one of the world's leading universities" in his field (as the Wikipedia article on the university puts it), who is cited 4,000 times in scientific literature, who has an h-index of 29, and who has been honored by a foreign government for his contributions to medicine, "simply not notable," since you offer no rationale for this strange claim? Komolaquo (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he meets the test as an academic if he is named professor. Does this count, DGG? --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to this document (p.21) he held the chair from 2007–2013 and is now a professor emeritus, but the timing doesn't matter; he passes WP:PROF#C3 regardless. He also passes #C1 by having many highly cited publications (nine with over 100 cites). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to pass WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF. --JumpLike23 (talk) 02:48, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilizer (mobile testing solution)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable product by non-notable company. No RSes. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN it is TOOSOON for this topic. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only NN, but no assertion of importance. This article was created by a non-declared COI editor who should be blocked [41]. The Dissident Aggressor 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YTS solutions[edit]

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

Indian "payment solutions" company. Probably not notable on its own (trivial third-party coverage), and has been acquired by Airtel. [42] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 05:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Monarch.NewMutants (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Vote by blocked sockpuppet of Undertrialryryr struck. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: solutions are not inherently notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banglastan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banglastan in late February 2015 was undecided.
- At 09:05, 28 September 2015‎ User:Mahfuzur rahman shourov speedy-delete-tagged it for ((db-a1)), ((db-a3)), ((db-a11)), ((db-g1)), ((db-g3)) (very short article, no content, subject invented by article creator, patent nonsense, pure vandalism)., and also "factual accuracy disputed" and "neutrality disputed".
- At 04:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC) User:Someguy1221 queried this speedy deletion in my user talk page.
  - @Mahfuzur rahman shourov and Someguy1221: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard and Someguy1221: it is a propaganda article with no RS. the links in citations are of non-notable dubious sources, first glance at url will show. translating the contents of links into english is too much for my hand, leave it to admins with bengali fluency

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as my previous argument, Strong Delete misrepresentation of source, the idea of it heard from a facebook user thats all and another politician said it to hurt the opposition without any source. So the notion of this idea is imaginative unless it is proven. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My observation is, this is a strong case of WP:neologism. The term Banglastan has not reportedly been used by prominent Islamist groups. However, some online and social media material can be found where critics attribute or impose use of this term to Islamists. The article is created and maintained by an editor, who has history of generating controversies and pushing POV and neologism. I wouldn't say this word doesn't exist, but at this point, this term doesn't warrant an entry. --nafSadh did say 22:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources which have been used as reference are misrepresented in most of the cases. The topic does not worth an article, some of the information are vague. Tanweer^talk 22:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Banglastan! definitely a Fighting word-used by some Radical group and Politician for blame game and hate speech. The article here intentionally created, as if it were a separatist movement in Bangladesh! What comes next? Article like Hindu Republic of India! just because of facebook propaganda like these HINDU-REPUBLIC-OF-INDIA Hindu Republic of India _/\_—Samudrakula (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a concept to have its own Wikipedia article, that concept must be the subject of at least two published sources which are cited. I can only check the English language sources here but those only give passing mentions of the term. There can be Wikipedia articles about the protests behind this concept but I do not see evidence in the English language sources that this term should have its own article. Much of the content presented here does not match the sources being cited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been created for propaganda. Most of the sources are grossly misrepresented; the remaining are unreliable. Often newspapers publish news on non-sense matters but that doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia. A propaganda term like 'Banglastan', which is published on a facebook page, can not be the subject of an Wikipedia article. Strong Delete. --Ali Haidar Khan Tonmoy (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see this article as a hoax or a vandalism attempt. However, the term Banglastan is not that notable for an article. Simply fails GNG. There are factual errors too. Faizan (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is nothing but an intentional attempt of incitation based on misrepresented and disputed unreliable sources which can be led to a clutter. The links of the newspaper article doesn't prove that it is a strong based factual concept, and these reports are nothing but some volatile thought, based on some social media propaganda to lead to unwanted sectarianism. These type of article should not be kept on wikipedia. Strong Delete. Sharif uddin (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to ask for Speedy Delete for the article. Lots of unreliable sources, someone's personal opinion are given to establish the notability of the subject! And Basher Kella is just an unofficial facebook page. Looks like the creator of the article has no idea about it. It's any statement can't be the subject of an Wikipedia article. Happiest persoN (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This post is a propaganda. Someone wrote something in Facebook does not mean that it becomes notable. The concept of "Banglastan" is not any wide spread idea. The sources used here also don't establish the matter. These contents were picked up from some websites and then added in Wikipedia. The key term was used once in some websites and even some websites don't mentioned it. Few of the website page don't exist. Also those who used the term in the websites are all secondary person, not primary source, besides it is something they (persons who stated the term) believe. There is no clue that these guys got the information from the alleged party. There is an website link which refers a Facebook page, but as I stated earlier, it does not make it notable. So this page should be deleted. Intakhab ctg (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with others. It is just a propaganda. These type of article should not be kept on wikipedia. Strong Delete. Altaf (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This is just a propaganada. Its not a widely known term. It shouldn't be on wikipedia. ferdous ^TM 03:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It means two things - (a) a journalistic rhetoric used sporadically, and (b) one post in a defunct facebook page. Neither clears WP:N. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Somebody can snow this closed any time now... Carrite (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lennie Clark[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. I dream of horses (C) @ 04:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 04:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 04:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails BLPNOTE and GNG Flat Out (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a huge number of internal Wikipedia links have ben added and it's no longer an orphan. Plus it's only one day old. Give it some time to become a fully fleshed-out page. Check back next week: guarantee it will be of really high quality. 03:22, 29 September 2015 (MST)
Delete per nom, BIO and GNG. If (highly unlikely) he gets elected, then he would be notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get articles just for being candidates, per WP:NPOL — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate for office, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails BLPNOTE and GNG -- fairly blatant self-promo, maybe for next run. Quis separabit? 15:09, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of censored T-shirts[edit]

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

This is an article that is an indiscriminate listing of every time something negative happened to someone wearing a t-shirt. The number of instances that this article covers is truly astronomical in number. Furthermore, what constitutes censorship is never clearly defined and arrest, threats of arrests, fines, lawsuits, offending police officers, being removed from a flight and being asked to remove a t-shirt are all included under the umbrella of this list even though many of these are not comparable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN and Indiscriminate. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clothing controversies are enyclopaedic topics (for example, responses to Punk T-shirts in the 1970s are quite well recorded and documented) but an indiscriminate list such as this isn't really how to go about an article on the subject. Given that almost every single garment has, at some point somewhere, been the subject of controversy or bans (trousers for women, short skirts, shorter skirts, strapless dresses, etc...) a list of "censored" clothing is potentially enormous - this could potentially include all the thousands of instances where a child is sent home from school for not meeting the uniform code, which is excessive. Such instances, where notable, should be covered (with full citations) in appropriate articles, but are not really suitable for a list such as this. For example, one of the T-shirts in the list is given sufficent and appropriate coverage on its band's page. Mabalu (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 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 keep from nominator's withdrawl. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 23:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey (coachbuilder)[edit]

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

Inactive editing, last edits were in January 2014. Article relies upon only one source. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Being a 1930s company I'd imagine there's next to none info online but there's probably a few in old newspapers & magazines. –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this business made notable products. True that little information is available, possibly lost to enemy action in WWII. Eddaido (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, strong indication of speedy keep. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 23:24, 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 delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandralekha (singer)[edit]

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

Failing to pass WP:BIO Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously as although Books and News both found results for this and other people with this name, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 22 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! 04:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN, the refs are there but there is not enough detail to imply notability. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:42, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Brown (gymnast)[edit]

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

Article about a college gymnast. Searches find some coverage, but it is routine reporting of results from local media such as Penn State News - nothing to suggest that she is (yet) at the standard of WP:NGYMNAST (Note: that link isn't working right for me, but it will take you to WP:NSPORTS, then you may have to scroll to find the heading "Gymnastics"). JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest better with my best search results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging creator Theworldgymnast1, as they have created a number of articles like this. I can understand the motivation, but a college gymnast is not likely to meet WP:GNG unless they are also wining international competitions at some point in their career.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 22 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! 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and fails WP:NGYMNAST. Jakejr (talk) 03:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jhoom (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS for not meeting the basic criteria of WP:N and with significant coverage in WP:RS. Claim of receiving one award is backed by a gossip column source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Its an award winning album but lacks references. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the award is cited and referenced, and it was a No 1 album. It doesn't seem difficult to find references. Oculi (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to find RS for award. But one line mentions in references provided are far behind what NALBUMS expects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has won an award and been on top of two charts. Also, the Times of India wrote that it has become the 'highest selling album in Pakistan'. That is enough to pass WP:NALBUM. Yash! 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which charts? Are they listed in WP:CHART? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:35, 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 no consensus. Notability appears borderline, and a renomination is conceivable if new material does not appear. Sandstein 09:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Wardell (comedy)[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It's an article about a comedian without any TV credits, presumably written by the comedian himself as self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeregal (talk • contribs)

Keep - Added filmography to article. Subject has one TV credit and is to work on more TV this year (Citation 14). This comedian's main medium is stand-up and not TV, and should be judged as such. Notability: significant news coverage (Vice, Washington Post), worked with multiple notable comedians such as Bob Odenkirk and Bo Burnham, and has performed at notable venues including San Diego Comic-Con 2015. Also, it's unlikely Wardell wrote this about himself; the article was created in January, but the first time he expresses knowledge of it (and brags) is 12 July 2015 on his Twitter account. - Substantial Contributor Bollsaurus (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I feel his notability is marginal at best, and "is to work on more TV this year" is almost the slogan for WP:TOOSOON, but I think there's enough verifiable stuff here that it can pass. The fact that his fans are vandalising the page due to it hitting Twitter is neither here nor there for notability, and is probably a temporary problem, but I'll watch the page anyway. --Slashme (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy as a compromise as some of this may be acceptable but I think it could be better with my searches finding the expected results here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be perfectly happy with that result. --Slashme (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 22 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! 04:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - as this is currently WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klondyke 5[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Note that Indie-Music.com is not a reliable source, note their disclaimer. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to band as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 22 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! 04:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No claim to notability per WP:NALBUMS. If redirected, target article would be the band. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slice (Arthur Loves Plastic album)[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wammies are a a regional music award, not a major award. Lacks reviews, charting. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Note that The Kettle Black is not a reliable source, it's a tripod.com hosted personal page. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as there's nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 22 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! 04:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No claim to notability per WP:NALBUMS. If redirected, target article would be the band. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No redirect as search term is unwieldy and contains the more likely search of the stage name of Bev Stanton already. --Bejnar (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Zero State[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to band as there's nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 22 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! 04:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No claim to notability per WP:NALBUMS. If redirected, target article would be the band. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troubled[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Note: Church of girl is not a reliable source, it is a small 2 person internet "radio" website, they are not professional reviewers. Collected Sounds is a blog, the reviewer is not professional. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to band as there's nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 22 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! 04:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No claim to notability per WP:NALBUMS. If redirected, target article would be the band. By the way, that 'favorable' review from Church of God doesn't seem to exist (when I clicked on the link, I got a page saying that the review would be forthcoming). NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Shag (album)[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Note: Dead Earnest is not a reliable source, it's a dead personal blog created for "furthering the causes of unsigned bands" [43]. Collected Sounds is a blog, the reviewer is not professional. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to band as there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 22 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! 04:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No claim to notability per WP:NALBUMS. If redirected, target article would be the band. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper (Arthur Loves Plastic album)[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Note that Dead Earnest is not a reliable source, it's a dead personal blog created for "furthering the causes of unsigned bands" [44]. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 22 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! 04:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. None of the criteria under WP:NALBUMS are satisfied. If this is to be a redirect, target article would be the band. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Searches didn't return anything to show it meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:16, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strings (Arthur Loves Plastic album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Note that Dead Earnest is not a reliable source, it's a dead personal blog created for "furthering the causes of unsigned bands" [45]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to band' as there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 22 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! 03:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. None of the criterion under WP:NALBUMS are satisfied. If this is to be a redirect, target article would be the band. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdev Maan[edit]

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

BLP notability concerns Action Hero Shoot! 10:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing obviously no better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 22 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! 03:58, 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 delete. Virtually zero independent sources provided to demonstrate notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small Cell Forum[edit]

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

Not entirely sure if notable, and not well referenced. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing better than these links. Feel free to draft and userfy, SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is re-listed "to generate a more thorough discussion..." I thought I'd give my view about the 'notability' aspect. Given that I'm the one who originally created this article, maybe my view may not count as fair and unbiased discussion, but I'd give it anyway for what its worth.

The information given in section 1, 3, and 5 can be considered as the type of information found in encyclopedia.
Section 1 clarifies the relationship between two similar industry Fora and explains that one is a former name of the other rather than two separate and independent groups. Such information is certainly not "obvious" and a "common knowledge" by casual lay persons unless he/she is involved with telecom industry and knowledgeable in such industry consortium and their activities.
Due to the reasons above, I contend that the previous comment of "...there's nothing better than these links" (Google search result) is simply an opinion of one person and not a fact.Wellcreek (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Reign[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet our notability guidelines, and is primarily autobiographical. From the page blanking it appears that user wishes the page to be deleted anyway. Harrias ^talk 08:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no evidence of better improvement. Pinging past user Comatmebro for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 22 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! 03:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is to delete.

The Arts Castle[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable even locally and my searches found nothing to suggest hopeful improvement with the best results here, here and here and thus with hardly much improvement since starting in September 2006, there's not much to suggest keeping. Notifying past users Ukexpat, Orangemike and Stifle. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete unless somebody can come up with sources that Swister didn't, I'm afraid this one just doesn't make it under notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose -- This article is expressed to be about an organisation. I agree that the organisation is NN. However the majority of the text is the history of a building. I do not know Ohio, but my guess is that its architecture is unusual, so that the building could be notable. WP:V requires that an article is verifiable, bit that it is verified. I take it that the picture is that of a real building, which is accordingly a source. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 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! 03:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Peterkingiron's comment above is a nice idea, not sure how to go about doing that, though. In its current incarnation, I doesn't meet standards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelrazak al-Restom al-Dandachi[edit]

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

Obviously this is foreign and before the Internet but my searches simply found nothing good and even searching with the Arabic name simply found these links so I'm notifying past editors Fram, JaGa and Dr. Blofeld. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there would presumably be articles in Syrian newspapers at the time of his death, but I wouldn't know how to find them, let alone read them. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A better transliteration of his name is "Abd al-Razzaq al-Dandashi". Editors will have better luck using that name in a google or google books search. I rewrote the article with a reliable source. It needs more RS, but either way the subject is certainly notable enough to warrant an article. He was a co-founder and secretary-general of a political group that at one point held great influence in Syrian politics and many of whose members went on to become major Syrian political figures. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:17, 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! 03:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be fairly high number of Google Books hits concerning middle east history, history of the ba'ath party in Syria in 1932-1935 and linked to the League of Nationalist Action article. Seems genuine, passes WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2015

Comment Once this is settled (and I'm sure the decision will be "Kept"), I will move the article to the much more common English transliteration: Abd al-Razzaq al-Dandashi. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:55, 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 speedy keep. nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turbojugend[edit]

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

Disputed prod but I don't see the evidence that this is a notable fan club. There's not much more that can be reliably sourced than is at Turbonegro#Turbojugend. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Oppose! I improved the references on this article and I added 2 book references, describing the nature of this fanclub. Furthermore, there exist Wikipedia articles on this topic in German, Swedish and Norwegian.

With my modifications, the article matches the definitions of WP:Club

1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

With hundreds of chapters all around the world, this criterion is undoubtedly met.

2) The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

As there are 3 books about its nature and activities and a series of newspaper articles and interviews with the band Turbonegro regading Turbojugend, I think this criterion is met as well. Sebotic (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of turbojugend I can verify there are several sources of this fan club's existence. A simple search of Google responds with turbojugend.net which is a detailed history and archive of jugend from across the world. The fact this is an international organization makes it relevant. If one was to explore further on turbojugend.net one would discover the existence of a store front for purchases of denim jackets that are approved or denied by a moderator. This is an example of an organizational structure. The search of "turbojugend in media" provides several links to relevant organizations as well as videos of the jugend in action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJLandfill (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be reliable sources not mere blogs or other things like that and we need substantial coverage not mere mentions. Footnotes 2 and 3 are about the diploma and Footnote 2 goes to the main page and it's not clear whether the website qualifies. Footnote 3 is similar so it's not clear what the reference is saying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: I fail to understand your concern:

The updated article includes published books about the Turbojugend. What is more substantial than published books?
Why does the website Turbojugend.net not qualify? You can see the Turbojugend chapters allover the world here.
There is a public Facebook site about the annual meeting, https://www.facebook.com/weltturbojugendtage, the event is covered here http://www.mmenschenkind.com/weltturbobilderschau/ where you see that we made it into a gallery in Hamburg, Germany
Hamburg's newspaper, The Hamburger Abendblatt, reports here: http://st.pauli-news.de/schlaglicht/turbojugend-auf-st-pauli/, http://st.pauli-news.de/schlaglicht/turbojugend-laedt-zum-familientreffen/
There is a shop where you can buy the Turbojugend merchandise: http://www.shopturbojugend.com/category/denim
There is a podcast about the Turbojugend: http://turbojugendradio.podomatic.com
The Urban Dictionary as an article about the Turbojugend: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turbojugend

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Could you please clarify why you argue for the deletion of the Turbojugend page? Sebotic has shown that the Turbojugend article matches the definitions of a notable WP:Club.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusDiefenthaler (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 22 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! 03:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It could still do with better sourcing, but with the sources now provided in the article - including books about them - they pass the notability threshold. Scholar suggests there is also some sort of sociological paper written about them ("Exzess, Provokation und Normalität-die Turbojugend: die Untersuchung eines Fanclubs"), but there doesn't seem to be a copy online. Kolbasz (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like in WP:SNOW, subject is very easily referenced with independent, reliable sources way above the requirements of WP:GNG. I have added just 15-20 citations, several of which are ((Cite book))s in several different languages e.g.

Eric Davidson (1 May 2010). We Never Learn: The Gunk Punk Undergut, 1988-2001. Backbeat Books. pp. 235–. ISBN 978-1-61713-389-3. ... singer with a murderous gaze and gut, they've since amassed a worldwide cult, the Turbojugend.
Thierry Aznar. CAMION BLANC: HARD ROCK & HEAVY METAL 40 années de purgatoire - Tome 2 (in French). CAMION BLANC. pp. 266–. ISBN 978-2-35779-541-9. A peine trois ans plus tard, Turbonegro est presque devenu un groupe culte ; ses fans extrêmement actifs se réunissent tous les ans sous la bannière Turbojugend. Un tel enthousiasme incite le groupe à remettre le couvert : il revient avec ...
Mark Verver (3 May 2012). Ik heb nergens spijt van: het leven van Dikke Dennis (in Dutch). Marmer. pp. 123–. ISBN 94-6068-956-6. De band, met een politie-escorte door het labyrint geloodst, is kort na ons binnengekomen, met in hun kielzog een bonte verzameling vrienden en kennissen, fans met connecties, een delegatie van de Turbojugend Assen, mensen van de ...
Janka Schröder (2013). Ratten Im Halbmondlicht (in German). BoD – Books on Demand. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-3-8448-9357-1. ... Oder die Turbojugend mit ihren Jeansjacken, die nie gewaschen werden. ...

and as a book search is mandatory due diligence it's hard to understand that we are here. Pinging @Ricky81682: for their reconsideration. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw it. I looked over the book sources but I wasn't sure where the difference was between passing mentions and significant discussion there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Airlines-Air Jamaica Transition Limited destinations[edit]

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

Caribbean Airlines and Air Jamaica were fully merged their operations in 2010, and the article Caribbean Airlines destinations has their destinations already shown and is maintained. This is an orphaned and redundant page. -- R45 ^talk! 00:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Fully redundant to Caribbean Airlines destinations. Kind regards, Grueslayer

Let's talk. 14:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 22 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! 03:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get Off the Unicorn[edit]

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

Non-notable short story collection. While the author has some note, and the individual stories may be notable, I'm not finding anything that leads me to believe this particular collection of stories is notable enough to meet WP:NBOOK to earn its own article here. No references offered in the article at this point, aside from the book itself. Mikeblas (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm incline to think of McCaffrey as one of those authors who is notable enough to where her works will inherit individual notability, but then I was an unabashed fangirl of her during my teen years so I'm probably not the most neutral person to make that statement. XD In any case, I'm not really finding that much. I found this book mention where it's mentioned in relation to the stories in the book, meaning that the stories are mentioned as part of this anthology rather than their individual publications. The best one so far is this book, which has a snippet of a review someone wrote for the anthology. I'd be inclined to see that as a RS since the publisher is an academic one, which gives the review some weight. There's enough in the snapshot to where it appears to have been a full length review rather than a book blurb. However that said, we do need more than this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Tokyogirl's assessment: she is definitely one of those authors with enough clout/importance that the story should be covered: should it be upmerged to a page that lists her other works? Maybe, that would be the judgement call here. Sadads (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that redirecting it to Anne_McCaffrey_bibliography#Short_story_collections and possibly including some more information about it there might be the best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article, as improved (which really wasn't hard to do), is better sourced, better referenced, and more detailed than the average article about a charting single. As with most pre-Internet books, most of the available sourcing for this isn't going to be available online, and there are lots of indicators of notability. Not the least of which is that Worldcat reports holdings in nearly 500 libraries on at least four continents, a remarkable total for a book originally published as a paperback original in 1977. While I can't access it directly right now, there's also a review in Library Journal that I can't access right now [46], a profile in Crawdaddy! at about the time this book was published, a critical volume on McCaffrey . . . . I don't understand the enthusiasm some editors have for punching holes in our coverage of significant, notable authors simply because the most useful sources are offline. Dumbing Wikipedia down until it's barely more useful than a Google search is not an improvement process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the works mentioned above (and, without doubt, contemporary reviews in offline genre magazines), this book, which is a scholarly critical commentary on McAffrey and her works, doesn't discuss this short story collection per se, but does spend quite a bit of space dealing with several of the constituent stories. From the standpoint of the encyclopedia's structure, there's very little motivation to attempt to deal with individual short stories separately when it is possible to address them in the context of the collection they were published in. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK which is now well reflected in the article, thanks to the references provided by Tokyogirl79 and The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is pretty much a good example of why collaboration is so awesome - I found some, but I didn't find all of the sourcing provided by others since it didn't really come up in a search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:43, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frio (band)[edit]

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

Article about band which does not satisfy WP:BAND or WP:GNG. I could find no reliable hits in my searches for this band. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources were found recently. Thank you for your concern.--Jondel (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Really? Where? Can you provide proof of these sources? Your statement does not help the discussion.~~ - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see now you added them as external links, I have removed as it was a blog and is not a reliable source, the other seems to be just routine coverage which does not help it towards the inclusion criteria.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom indicated it came from a The Zamboanga Journal. Anyway Philippine Star seems reliable.--Jondel (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources can be found to attest its notability. 121.54.54.171 (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is philippines star newspaper at the sources.--Jondel (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jondel, that's only one. Not enough anyway to support the subject (see WP:BARE). 121.54.54.171 (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice and sincere effort to keep out wiki garbage. I adding [47] more from a reputable newspaper Philippine Inquirer to the sources.--Jondel (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zamboanga Today, a source.--Jondel (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable and is mentioned in multiple popular Philippine newspapers. - Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 11:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioned? or extensively covered? Popular newspapers or reliable newspapers? All but one of links provided in the article discuss the band in any sort of detail and it looks more like a Press release then actually editorial coverage and the only thing which states they have any sort of charting music which is suspect, bands that chart normally get much higher coverage then what has been found so far.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. This band has NOT "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches don't turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without actual sourcing, there's nothing to merge. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[edit]

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

I've done a few web searches and books searches, and I can't find any substantive discussion of this work: a good number of sites mention it in long lists of bible translations, and there are some sites that complain about it as part of a general grumbling about non-standard bible translations, but I can't find good evidence of notability of the kind that would satisfy the GNG. Slashme (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I guess I tend to see all Bible translations as inherently notable. If kept, it should be moved to Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible. St Anselm (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point, this is pure advertising. I searched, and came up empty. For all I know this work-in-progress may turn out to be the greatest illustrated Bible since Gustave Doré. But at this point it is merely somebody's pet online project. I wish them well, but: no significant reliable sources = no article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm on board with StAnselm's IAR rationale. All bible translations should be regarded as inherently notable. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- I thought that it was accepted that all Bible translations were notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage. Carrite and Peterkingiron are incorrect, there is no common outcome for Bible translations. (See, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restored Holy Bible and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complete Jewish Bible.) Even were that to be so, this is not a new translation. It may be dumbed down here and there but it is the Challoner Revision of the Douay–Rheims Bible which has its own article. Basically, the group is just using crowd-sourcing to produce an illustrated bible. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. Tokyogirl79 put it this way last June Any translation, regardless of whether it was in print, electronic, or both formats, must have been the focus of independent and reliable coverage. Here the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources is indicative at the minimum of WP:TOOSOON, but could equally as well foreshadow lack of future notability. --Bejnar (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed that it was a translation, not a mere edition, and have therefore changed my vote. Rather than delete, might it not be better to merge (briefly) to Douay–Rheims Bible#Challoner Revision? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReD[edit]

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

I don't think this satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like a promotion piece. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Kierzek (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible violation of WP:PROMO. As well as WP:ORGDEPTH, as the article is a stub. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:53, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East Oxford Community Classics Centre[edit]

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

The source list only refers to mentions in a local newspaper, indicating little depth in coverage. Kebabpizza (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as I simply found no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The TES, ref 7 of current article, is hardly a 'local newspaper'. Although, as this is a part of the larger Iris Project, I'd also support its renaming or merger to be part of a wider article on that. Qwfp (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While it may belong to a separate organisation (though one with a redlink), the whole thing has the feel os a school department. If so, it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Got a secondary source in the Times Educational Supplement, which verifies. Somebody once told me that the TES was the backbone of the UK literatti, meaning prestigious. My keyboard is on the way out. scope_creep (talk) 22:13, 22 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! 03:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. Yes it verifies, but it lacks substantive coverage. It is just the community outreach center for thr Cheney School in Headington. If you don't like delete, you could always redirect to Cheney School. --Bejnar (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is just trivia. Redirect to Cheney School if you want, but I don't see much, if anything, that's worth merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Preiß[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this person is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable according to WP:SOLDIER. Preiß received Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, the highest German award for military valour during Wolrd War II. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that he also appears notable and may need familiar attention to search for any better sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a difficult one. Given over 7,000 Knight's Crosses were awarded for a single war I really don't think we can realistically equate it to the Victoria Cross (181 awards for WWII) or Medal of Honor (471 awards for WWII). I really think we should restrict inherent notability to the higher versions of the award. Unfortunately, however, there seems to be some assumption that it does qualify a recipient for an article, as about one third of recipients do already have articles. So it does need further discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — To answer your question, you have to do a dive into award criteria themselves first. What I mean by this, you have to separate the recipients into those who received the award for pure bravery in combat, and those who received the award for outstanding military leadership. Other nations awarded separate service awards for skilled leadership; an example is the Distinguished Service Order. This is true for all grades of the Knight's Cross. One also has to take into account that the Victoria Cross (or Medal of Honor) was exclusively awarded for deeds of extreme bravery. Therefore a pure number comparison will not work. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. And we do not consider the DSO sufficient for inherent notability. Although two would be. I'm also sure that when the Knight's Cross was awarded for acts of gallantry the level was frequently considerably below that required for the VC (probably closer to that required for the DCM or DSO for gallantry, which again would not qualify a recipient for an article unless it was awarded at least twice). So we're still getting a situation where German personnel require a considerably lower threshold for inherent notability than British or American personnel. That doesn't seem right or logical. We're back to the old argument as to whether all recipients of the Légion d'Honneur, for instance, are notable because it's the highest honour France can give, despite the fact that they're handed out as ubiquitously as the MBE in Britain. We've already come to the conclusion that all recipients of the L d'H should not be considered notable and I think we need to come to the same conclusion for the Knight's Cross. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple books in German covering the Knight's Cross winners of all grades so they're notable in that respect. The Germans seem to be fascinated by them to a degree unknown in the Commonwealth or US for anything lower than the VC or MoH.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ß is not an English letter, needs to be changed to "ss"... Carrite (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No need to debate about which military medals are more valuable than others, there is actually a very broad Special Notability Criterion for WP inclusion. WP:Notability for Biography, "Any Bio no. 1," which states: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." That's all there is to it, there is no need to meet an arcane Military project hoop. This subject passes on that basis. SEE: WP:ANYBIO. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that would also include such honours as the Distinguished Service Order and the Military Cross! Both very well-known and significant. Yet we would never accept (and have never accepted) that these provide inherent notability. So, no, that's not enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sturmvogel 66 and Carrite. St Anselm (talk) 00:55, 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 Angry Indian Goddesses. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 12:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajshri Deshpande[edit]

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

Since there's a ((notability)) tag on the article, I'd thought we'd establish the issue once and for all. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am resolving the issues listed by Wikipedia on this page. I am adding more outside references and citations for the biographical information provided. I am creating valid links from other Wikipedia pages to this page.Rajshriwiki (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Rajshriwiki —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although News found a few results, her IMDb says it all...still in production and not much for an article. WP:TNT and start again when better especially the sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the show isn't out yet, trailers are and there is significant talk surrounding the angry Indian goddesses. Why delete and restart? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Angry Indian Goddesses has been screened in Toronto, the film won a runner up award, and additional notes on the film and a mention of Deshpande here, Good additional source for the article. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angry Indian Goddesses the only known film in her works and from where she is getting her notability. The star cast of the film, all women, has many other established actresses and she isn't playing lead. So its not by default that the film's popularity would mean her notability. With no explicit reviews on her, positive or negative, she doesn't seem to pass NACTOR or even BIO1E. Better redirected. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angry Indian Goddesses, normally I would have said delete as WP:TOOSOON for lack of specific coverage, but the likelihood of readers searching for her supports the redirect. Statistics show upwards of 30 hits a day since 15 September. --Bejnar (talk) 22:23, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Logic[edit]

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

Reads like a promotional ad piece, and parts of it are uncited (and possibly copyrighted). Placing it here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Site appears to be down. Possibly they went under. scope_creep (Talk) 22:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Company seems to have been absorbed into Informatica as detailed. [News Release]. Don't know what bearing it has but did seem to be a market leader.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail to demonstrate notability as required by WP:GNG. I am not impressed by the sources offered and was unable to find anything better by Googling. If better sources can be found, I am willing to change my !vote. Msnicki (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to parent company Informatica.Software company article of unclear notability. The it-director.com ref is paywalled, so its level of coverage is unknown, but in any case one RS is not sufficient to establish notability, and the other refs are a non-notable award and a routine announcement of a business acquisition.Dialectric (talk) 16:54, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shalimar Radio[edit]

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

claimed to be advertisey, however it may be possible to rescue some of this in a rebuild - provided of course that the community thinks the article should be here in the first place, hence the afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero coverage in RS as far as I can tell so miles off meeting WP:ORG. SmartSE (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage. Fails WP:GNG. "Shalimar Radio Los Angeles" should not to be confused with the slightly less non-notable "Shalimar Radio Network" 94.6 FM out of Islamabad. --Bejnar (talk) 22:12, 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 redirect to Dragon Models Limited#John Adam hoax. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Adam (hoax)[edit]

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

Basically, this is nothing but news and old news. A hoax with no lasting significance by a group that apparently didn't exist. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm kind of undecided here. My first inclination was to delete, but I did find some mention of this in various academic texts, which hold a little more weight than newspaper coverage. I wish that there was a good target to merge this into. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books was published in 2010, which shows a bit of long term coverage. Still undecided, though. I'm going to keep looking for sources and just throw them onto the article and maybe give it a re-write later. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... we could probably just merge this material into the article for the manufacturer. This is only a few paragraphs long and we could take out some of the extra details and just make it into a paragraph. I do think that this merits a mention somewhere, given that it's had long term coverage in academic texts, but I'm still undecided as to whether or not it merits its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The "coverage" in the text was trivial passing mentions. You won't convince me without something that has at least a little bit of depth. This hoax has no lasting effect on Iraq, the US military, or the war. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having another look, the article Dragon Models Limited seems to cover this topic in an appropriate level of detail. So I think it makes sense to redirect this page there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd added that info there with the anticipation that this would likely end with a merge/redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon Models Limited. Good find. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Models Limited. That does seem to be the best way out of the quandry. Academic recognition and coverage of the topic does give it a sheen of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 22:17, 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 Delete. The consensus below is that the sources are not sufficient to support notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Jorge Casco[edit]

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

I don't know exactly how iconic the photo of his plane is (the claim is unsourced), but I suspect it's not enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see the notability. Whether the photo was iconic or not, the pilot wasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable for his death in that his body wasn't returned to Argentina until 26 years after the war. Articles in the two major Argentine papers: Clarín La Nación, some others: [48] [49]. Vrac (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having a body found and repatriated does not satisfy notability requirements. It happens all the time.[50][51] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like judgment on intrinsic notability. GNG says we cover what reliable sources cover, and reliable sources have covered this. Vrac (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTMEMORIAL "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements". This individual has received significant coverage in RS per WP:GNG and therefore meets such requirements. Vrac (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks SIGCOV per WP:GNG. A couple of newspaper articles surrounding the repatriation of his remains does not constitute significant coverage to me. Indeed, this level of coverage has been afforded to similar events for the servicemen of many different countries and is fairly routine (I can think of a few examples of the bodies of Australian servicemen killed in Vietnam being located 40 years later for instance, likewise for World War I and World War II. No doubt there would be many British, Canadian and US examples too). Significant coverage to me would be coverage in books as well as newspaper articles, or a collection of biographies etc., and would deal with the individual's life in detail to the point where we could write a complete biography of him. Yet all we really have is coverage of the return of his body from Argentina and the circumstances surrounding his death. Anotherclown (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Album One. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brass Goggles[edit]

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

References are not to independent reliable sources; I propose either deletion or merger into album or band per WP:MUSIC. KDS4444^Talk 11:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails related policy guidelines and is already mentioned in the band's article. I also suggest that all other articles related to the band be deleted/merged. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to album, with possible further merges - sources don't seem to support having quite this many articles on them. Artw (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:17, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wings For Life World Run[edit]

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

tagged for notability since may. There are a number of ghits for this but none to any reliable sources. Don't believe it meets GNG Gbawden (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as although News, Books and browser all found results, I see nothing to suggest better improvement and there's not obvious move target. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it meets the notability's criteria for a road race with several notable performers, elite athletes of different nationalities, broadcast through the internet and more than 5000 competitors. Pablovp (talk) 17:06, 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! 03:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-searches found some items, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Not sure it meets the road race guidelines, either, since it is unclear if any of the 35 races had the requisite 5000 entrants. Regardless, even if it did, that only is an indication that it may be notabl. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability Secret (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo Adriano-Garcia[edit]

ALSO DELETE REDIRECT: Marco Polo Garcia. Quis separabit? 13:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor and even less notable alleged politician. Quis separabit? 12:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lucita Soriano as my searches found nothing outstandingly good to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR, significant roles in multiple significant films, including a best supporting actor award from the Film Academy of the Philippines. 1.--RioHondo (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive reply, @RioHondo. Quis separabit? 00:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable.--Jondel (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Jondel's vote is meaningless. He has been twice accused of stalking this nominator's AFDs and~~ "Notable" 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? 00:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person doesn't exactly pass WP:NACTOR. Is winning an award from the Philippine film academy supposed to satisfy "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"? If we were to create a Wikipedia page for everyone who won an "award", we would have countless stubs about non-notable people. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest reading Film Academy of the Philippines if you haven't done so. Believe it or not, there is a thing called local or national notability, or a local or national Oscars.--RioHondo (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The way that article looks right now, the FAP doesn't even appear to be notable by itself. You know, just because someone gives someone else an award they don't directly become notable. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on searches showed they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The FAP article is wholly unsourced with RS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ARTN. Added ref to FAP article.--RioHondo (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - A link to a government site that shows FAP being endorsed by a former ~~dictator~~ president. How does this actually establish the organization's notability? or credibility? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prasenjit Mallick[edit]

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

Page was created completely for promotion with a very poor quality language.Maximum content is citation less. No reference, no External link. Singer, having no media coverage and notability. Encyclopedic tone was not followed. Unnecessary and wrong links towards other Wikipedia articles. Grammatical errors are present. Content is not appropriate for Wikipedia.Article should be improved a lot or should be removed. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:09, 22 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! 03:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:55, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Innovation Academy[edit]

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

An extensive and impressive list of sponsors, but I can not find any coverage of great depth or significance. Kebabpizza (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can actually be improved as my searches found nothing better than this and some other results at browser. The current version is certainly not what it could be so it would have to be improved, SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:09, 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 delete. I will happily facilitate transwiking at the request of any Wiktionary sysop or user capable of completing the task on that side. Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brown-bag seminar[edit]

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

Unreferenced and tagged for improvement for 2 years. Searching fails to turn up anything which could be considered a WP:RS. This seems like something that's more appropriate for wiktionary. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of hits for holding them. Not a lot for explaining what they are. WP:NOTNEO--Savonneux (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately and mention elsewhere if possible (even though I see no good targets) as my searches found nothing better than some results at News and Books. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:03, 22 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! 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary as per WP:NOTNEO. The article belongs there as it is an unimportant term (to Wikipedia). —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dicdef with little room for expansion. shoy (reactions) 14:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DICTIONARY. Nothing in searches produced enough for its own article. Wikify to Wiktionary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:50, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Thompson (Attorney)[edit]

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

political advertising. Local refs for a county DA. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN local politician lacking non-trivial coverage. Advert written by employee of the subject. reddogsix (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no reference to a presumption of notability for a county attorney. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 22:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN local politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 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. The consensus below is that being the last surviving Friekorps veteran is not a sufficient claim to notability and that the available sources do not support notability on any alternative bases (such as for his musical career). Eluchil404 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Helmut Fink[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources. Although it has been unsourced for five years, there are a few out there (such as this one), but nothing that rises above the level of routine coverage. Being the "last known German Revolution veteran and the last German World War I-Era veteran" is his claim to notability, but this is the only encyclopedic fact available and could be (and is) noted at list of last surviving World War I veterans and list of last living war veterans; per past precedent, being the last or oldest of X is not sufficient in and of itself for a stand-alone article. Canadian Paul 19:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his age is verified by the two newspaper articles, I added the sources, he was a member of a Freikorps (i.e. revolutionary irregular paramilitary troops), aged 17–18, he was definitely not a veteran of WWI (that's the reason why the awkward construction "last Worl War I era veteran" is used), he was an orchestra musician (first flautist of one of the most famous German orchestras) but I haven't been able to dig up much on the web about possible solo performances, he was active from the 1920s to the 1970s, definitely pre-internet. Also, the death date is OR, it may be true, but no source found yet, only some Wiki mirrors. Also his name was spelled "Helmuth" (according to the newspapers). Kraxler (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the claim to be the last living survivor of the 1918/19 Freikorps is accurate then I would say he is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMO, even being the last survivor of a noted unit, say the Roughriders, wouldn't qualify for a standalone article (Jesse Langdon gets a paragraph in the main article); a paramilitary organization certainly doesn't, and he doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Two newspaper articles (from the little I can read) don't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO either. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Freikorps wasn't a single notable unit. It was a large group of organisations that defined an era and was involved in what was effectively a civil war. Bit of a difference. I think the last surviving veteran of the SA or the SS might be considered notable, don't you? Same thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse. It isn't even a single, well-defined unit. How in the world would you ever be able to prove the claim? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are documents and lists for everything in Germany. For more info see Freikorps. Kraxler (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be that being the last survivor of a famous unit is not notable on its own. Why would a lesser claim? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While we tend to treat gerontology-driven Bio with kid gloves, the fact that the Freikorps was a broad alliance of right wing/nationalist paramilitaries rather than a single outfit does degrade the notability hook of this biography. This is additionally defective in the way BLP-1E rules articles on living people defective: an ordinary individual with the accidental fact of having lived a long time. There is a rational keep argument to be made, but I'm non the other side of the fence myself... Carrite (talk) 17:08, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William "Leffen" Hjelte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hjelte

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

not my field, but the references loo either thoroughly unreliable or irrelevant to notability , similarly to the adjacent article. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Subject is documented in multiple reliable secondary sources, which are included on the Reliable Video Game sources list (for full disclosure, I was the creator of this article).--Prisencolin (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, no new information has come to light since the last AfD to warrant delete. Sources such as Red Bull [52] suggest in depth coverage. Since performance at EVO [53] has given him additional coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just a quick glance at the Reference list shows Kotaku, IGN, and Polygon, all three being very notable sources. Above comments explain the rest of my reasoning. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Leffen is one the most well known Esports players today and has progressively been getting more media attention. There are enough sources at the moment for a speedy keep Thehack771 (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what happened with the last AfD, but this isn't as clear-cut as it was made to seem. Nintendo Enthusiast and Gamersyndrome are not reliable sources. And without the new (aforementioned) Red Bull article, there would have been next to no reliable biographical material with which to write an article. So that Red Bull article is good, as is the Kotaku article (though not wholly dedicated to him), and the Daily Dot is decent though cursory. I removed a ton of unreliable sources and original research from the article (the non-notable tournaments should be removed) and I think it's fine to weak keep for now, but if there is no future coverage, it's borderline enough to possibly warrant a merge into the competitive Smash article. czar 16:37, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Korea Super Prix[edit]

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

The race never happened, and the article only contains a provisional entry list and a couple of sentences. Not notable enough in its own right, as the only sources concern the reinstatement and subsequent cancellation, which is already adequately covered on the parent Korea Super Prix article. QueenCake (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 22:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if it wasn't that it never happened and there's no further information I would've said to move this to the main Korean Super Prix article but this is simply best deleted. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power of a Constable[edit]

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

Confused article that doesn't cover anything that couldn't be included in Powers of the police in England and Wales. ninety:one 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. There are more and more people who have powers of a constable and it makes sense to cover this. It helps clarify the confusion the public have over police/quasi-police roles and wikipedia aims to deliver accurate information. To not cover this article would add to this confusion. And yes, what these deletion requests fail to acknowledge is that articles grow over time and wikipedia shouldn't expect a dissertation as soon as the article has been created. leopheard (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And to include it in Police powers for E/W doesn't make sense as someone might have police powers but the power may not necessarily be that of a constable e.g. PCSO searching for alcohol isn't a power of a constable but other powers they use are. leopheard (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It is not even wrong, it's just a mess. A redirect to police power, a much different concept, would not work. Bearian (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect Constable The phrase is in use with policing-related journals (see GBooks), but I don't find dedicated sources for the exact concept so this redirect makes the most common sense, at least for the time being. See also Individuals with powers of a Constable by the same author. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. --Rubbish computer 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the author fails to realise that the powers (note plural) of a constable very considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. See the article Constable. This article makes the assumption that such powers are uniary, indivisible, yet the only citation is to a UK law that makes a specific grant of enumerated powers to constables. On that basis WP:TNT. This article can only help confuse readers over police and quasi-police roles. The article Individuals with powers of a Constable should probably have been included in this Afd for the same reasons. Above that, prior to writing such an article even limited to the UK, an editor should immerse herself in the legal literature regarding such powers, which is extensive if not always coherent. If that had been the case, a better article actually dealing with the topic and with appropriate citations to law could have been the result. Let someone else with a better grasp of the field do just that, ab initio. --Bejnar (talk) 22:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brasserie Julien[edit]

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

This is a former PROD nomination. My PROD rationale stated "Non-notable restaurant, no coverage other than restaurant reviews. The venue has been closed for at least two years." (I determined this by using the Wayback Machine to look at archived pages of the restaurant's web page and the last version where their website existed was January 2013.) All the citations are restaurant reviews, there's no in-depth coverage that would make the restaurant notable enough for a Wikipedia article in my opinion. Fails WP:CORP. Diannaa (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Subject is notable, [54], [55], PROD deletions are for non-controversial deletes which sourced articles do not fall under. The two sources I've included are not included in the article. Notability is not temporary closed restuarant can be notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found two book sources [56] it was also covered in Best Food Writing 2003. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 06:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The linked reviews + travel guide mention seem sufficient for a restaurant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now if at all even though I'm weak keep and was mixed what to type here but as there's no further coverage and it appears closed, there are no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not reveal enough to show this restaurant meets the WP:GNG criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Subject is notable with good inline citations. Delmonico's and other defunct restaurants are still kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Formerly a notable eatery and entertainment venue. Many things in the world have ceased to exist, countries, companies, organisations, people. That is what history is and why they are in an encyclopaedia. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears notable. --Rubbish computer 22:30, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Aluise[edit]

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

"Kelly Aluise", "Kelly Anne Conroy" and "Kelly Conroy" generate no (or minor passing mentions) results for this person. Has produced and directed 2 segments of TV series' and has mostly minor credits. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 22:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable actress, Can't find any shred of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 02:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) no claim to notability is made (2) there is a lack of adequate coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLPNOTE and WP:NACTOR. --Bejnar (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete as the only alternative would be to redirect to the Blair Witch Project parody and even then that's not much so this is obviously best deleted with no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing to show this person meets any of the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NOAA Weather Radio. When the list is moved to mainspace, the redirect can (IMO, should) be retargeted. Courcelles (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWG24[edit]

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

A very low power (90 watt) licensed radio transmitter which per the article merely automatically transmits weather bureau (NOAA) reports and originates none of its own programming, failing the defacto standard for what makes a radio station notable. Edison (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Edison (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 02:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 02:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because, in my opinion, the article fails the general notability guideline, is not detailed, does not cite any sources, and does not indicate the importance of the topic. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 02:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect: Per Skyllfully, these NOAA Weather Radio articles do not meet NMEDIA or GNG. I recommend this one, and the entire list of sister stations, be deleted and their calls redirected to NOAA Weather Radio, which is the originating network. A list of all the stations can be added to the NOAA Weather Radio page. Sources for that will be easy to find. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Neutralhomer. --Rubbish computer 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everybody. Per WP:NMEDIA, a transmitter which exists merely as a rebroadcaster of a larger service, rather than an originating station in its own right, gets a redirect to the larger service rather than a standalone article. Neutralhomer is correct, as well, that all the similar transmitters listed in Category:NOAA Weather Radio should likely be redirected, as virtually none of them has any standalone notability independently of the service as a whole. No objection to a list, though I will say that there are enough such transmitters that a separate List of NOAA Weather Radio transmitters should be created rather than an embedded list inside the main article. (And then maybe the individual call signs could be redirected to that list instead.) Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this AfD appears to be going the delete/redirect route, I am going BOLD and creating the List of NOAA Weather Radio transmitters page in my sandbox. There is ALOT of information to put into the page, so it is going to take me a couple. Anyone wishing to help (and I would appreciate it), please contact me on my talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:06, 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. Article was nominated here 4 minutes after creation, which is strongly discouraged by a few guidelines here, among them WP:BITE and WP:BEFORE C 2. The !voters agree that the article in its present form should be kept. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sripuranthan Natarajan Idol[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newsletter. I dream of horses (C) @ 01:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 01:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 01:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 01:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was patrolled, while I was still in the process of typing the article (3 minutes after I first created article). Updates with more references have now been included "WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Keep: Significantly improved since nomination, with proper sources that suggest notability. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable now. I dream of horses Are you aware of the current changes? SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking in the history, this topic was notable, even in its original form, and was developing nicely. Under Wikipedia:GNG, it is the subject of an article that is notable, not its content. This was just a case of drive-by deletionism.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 16:14, 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 speedied as G3 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wollen-Blohm Prize[edit]

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

My searches found absolutely nothing aside from mirrors and the author seemed to have started other articles but I haven't found anything for this. Inviting Calamondin12 and TheGGoose. SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this prize ever existed; could be a hoax. Among other things, the attribution to a "so far unidentified Singaporean patron of the arts" is the kind of vague statement commonly found in hoaxes. The rationale behind a $10,000 cash prize for a philanthropist also seems odd. If this article has any basis in reality at all, it may have been an idea that was proposed but never came to fruition. In any case, if the Wollen-Blohm Prize had ever been actually awarded, we should have heard about it somewhere, since such awards generally attract at least some notice in reliable sources. Calamondin12 (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a likely hoax upon looking up its search results. TheGGoose (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax: have tagged it. --Rubbish computer 22:24, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kajal Kishore Rajohari[edit]

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

Endorsed BLPPRODed autobiography that has had one source added which is hardly a reliable source. Subject claims to have been picked for the Jharkhand cricket team, but I can find no sources to support that. Fails both the specific notability guideline for cricket figures and the general notability guideline for people. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 22:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., not verifiable, also no coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:V. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as I can tell, the cricket stuff is completely made up, at least, there is no record of it. Harrias ^talk 08:24, 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 Prisoners' Wives. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Haines[edit]

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

In-universe biography of a television character, sourced only to a character bio-blurb on the webpage of the network that airs the series she's in and a "what's on TV tonight" blurb about one episode of the series, with no real-world context or reliable sourcing to clarify why she could possibly be considered a notable television character. Delete or redirect to Prisoners' Wives. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. --Rubbish computer 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prisoners' Wives. Clear call. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as always with TV characters. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 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 Prisoners' Wives. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Roscoe[edit]

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

In-universe biography of a television character, sourced only to a (deadlinked) character bio-blurb on the webpage of the network that airs the series she's in, with no real-world context or reliable sourcing to clarify why she could possibly be considered a notable television character. Delete or redirect to Prisoners' Wives. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. --Rubbish computer 22:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely redirect to TV show as this is an applicable search and is best moved to the show's article. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 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 as this does indeed meet WP:CSD#G5 - the creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Smile Lee, who was blocked at the time the article was created, and there have been no significant edits by other people (just addition/removal of maintenance tags, deletion nominations and the like). Hut 8.5 21:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Comic Arts Society[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is WP:G5-able or not, so I'm AFDing it for further discussion.

The creating editor was blocked as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smile Lee. The article was created partly as self-promotion, as he originally mentioned himself as being a member of this group, but later removed that after being called out on it.

The Christian Post source seems usable, but not great. The Charisma and Christian Life source isn't viewable online, but looks to be a minor source. Other sources are pretty poor.

The "Understanding Evangelical Media" and "Graven Images" sources are parenthetical mentions of the groups existence with no other context, while the Christian Today and Comic Book Resources refs are routine mentions of Comic-Con related activity.

The Benzinga source is a press release, and it looks like the HM Magazine one is as well. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:37, 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Miles[edit]

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

Not notable as a political candidate, only other relevance is 3 obscure clinical guidelines research papers. FUNgus guy (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I haven't been able to find sufficient independent sources about this person to suggest that they meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to fail WP:NPERSON. --Rubbish computer 22:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get articles just for being candidates, per WP:NPOL — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate for office, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on October 19 if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't quite correct, Bearcat. What WP:NPOL actually says is "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." I take that to mean that if coverage during the campaign was sufficient to pass the WP:GNG, an article could be created and retained on that basis, even if the person had not been notable prior to the campaign. DES ^(talk) 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, WP:BLP1E - if all the coverage were related to the campaign .... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition to BLP1E, all candidates in all elections always garner local coverage in their local media — so all candidates would always be able to claim that they'd passed GNG if coverage of the campaign itself were all it took. Accordingly, coverage of the campaign itself is deemed to fall under WP:ROUTINE, except in the exceedingly rare circumstance that the coverage nationalizes into something far beyond the ordinary level of coverage that all candidates can always be expected to garner (e.g. what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010.) But with just one source here, nothing even remotely like that has been demonstrated so far. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our notability guideline for politicians as an unelected politician. The article can be recreated if he is elected to Parliament. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
from the sources i found if he wins the election he would certainly deserve notice, however..... Is there a relevant 2015 Canadian election campaign article that might be a valid redirect? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Calgary_Heritage#Election results -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 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.