The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votgil[edit]

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

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

Article about a two-year-old constructed language, which is sourced only to the creator's own self-published content about it and which offers no reliably sourced evidence that it actually has any widespread usage in any noteworthy real world context. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform for people to promote their own new creations — a new invented language can get into Wikipedia if it's getting media coverage already, but does not get a freebie just because it exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, no indication of notability per WP:GNG and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't this should be deleted since everything is from a credible source and I have removed any misleading info. HorseSnack (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are not sources that can support a topic's notability, and neither is the creator's own self-published content about it. This isn't a question of whether the facts are suspect or not — obviously the creator wouldn't lie about the content of his own creation — but there's a big difference between being able to verify that a thing exists and being able to properly demonstrate that an encyclopedia should concern itself with that thing's existence. The latter requires reliable source coverage in media which are independent of the topic's own PR efforts. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to FrathWiki, it would be a much better fit. Besides, there has been no sign that Jack "Ostracod" Eisenmann has knowledge of or an opinion on this article one way or another, and he is no longer 'maintaining' that language, having moved on to other projects; therefore there is little incentive to keep it. Furthermore, the article title itself is in error, as V0tgil orthagraphy dictates that 'o' makes a sound like "vote", and 0 or ö makes a sound like "bought", which is the sound the negation part of speech 'v0t' is supposed to make. When moved to FrathWiki, the article title should be 'V0tgil'. Anyway, as far as Wikipedia goes, I agree with the nomination: not notable enough in a global encyclopedic context. Arlo James Barnes 07:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki Sounds like a good idea. HorseSnack (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bazj (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G3/A11 - author's been blocked indef for socking and hoaxing Bazj (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are not even minimal signs of even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weirds[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. A band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist — reliable source coverage supporting a proper claim of notability must be present. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears promotional. -O.R.^Comms 05:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable and does appear to be promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as there are no signs of even minimally better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Handjob[edit]

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

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

The section concerning sex work in massage parlors seems far more suitable to an article about sex workers and the sex industry. I would clean it up and merge it somewhere with related information.

If you removed that second section about sex work, it would simply be offering a definition of Handjob. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary that isn't really what constitutes an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasphetamine (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• note This nomination/rationale was originally placed at Talk:Handjob#AfD Reasoning, I have moved it here to the proper location. Primefac (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Non-penetrative sex#Exclusively non-penetrative after merging anything related to "happy endings" into appropriate articles (erotic massage, prostitution, etc). As the nominator said, once the (largely irrelevant) information about sex work and massages is removed, this is little more than the definition found at the non-penetrative sex page. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Simon and Shuster published a book devoted to the topic, the Handjob Handbook. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is this isn't a matter of improving it if we keep it. It is an issue of writing an entire article. I'm not sure one book being published on handjobs means we should keep a page that is, at present, just a basic definition for the word.Jasphetamine (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another book called Sex: An Uncensored Introduction that discusses handjobs seriously. The topic is notable, so keeping and improving is a better option than deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My only thought with that reference is that it (again) doesn't give much more than a definition and a "how to", which Wikipedia is not. Primefac (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT, a Wikipedia article should not be written as a "how to guide", Primefac. That does not mean that a reliable source establishing the notability of a topic cannot be written as a how to guide. If Julia Child wrote about a certain classic dish of French cuisine, then that helps establish the notability of that dish, even if she is writing a detailed guide about how to prepare the dish. Similarly, significant descriptions in reliable sources about various ways to perform a handjob, including a complete book by a major publisher, help establish the notability of that sex act. It is just that the Wikipedia article itself should not be written in that style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, I take back my earlier comment. I still don't see how this page will become any more than a dictionary definition, though. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I first voted for redirect but then I noticed the other sex acts with their own articles in the linked target article of redirection. Sometimes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid argument and here it showcases policy. We've got a massive article for Tribadism and an article for Nipple stimulation as well... Footjob is also represented. The current Handjob article needs to be improved but as always that has nothing to do with its AfD worthiness — as in its worthiness as a subject matter of an article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I won't reiterate the arguments of the above editors who !voted keep, but I do agree with them. Passes WP:GNG. I also agree that the article needs work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with a more appropriate article, preferably of a more scientific nature, about assisted masturbation. -O.R.^Comms 05:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Terrible article, notable topic, per Cullen above. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - The article does need a few more hands working on it but overall the article is certainly notable (Sorry I couldn't resist the shitty pun!). –Davey2010^Talk 14:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 television programs#Listings by name. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programs by name[edit]

List of television programs by name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I grant that this might have made some sense in 2005, when the number of articles we had about television series was a lot smaller than it is today. But now, the topic is simply too massive — to even approach completeness, it would have to contain tens of thousands more entries than it does. Lists of television series constrained for some characteristic, such as genre or network or nationality or decade, would be legitimate, and many such lists already exist — but a unified master list of all television series that have Wikipedia articles is just too massive to be maintainable at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SALAT, which states, in relevant part: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." Here, I think we can safely say that the names of television programs are the functional equivalent of brand names for the purposes of determining whether a list of this nature should be deleted (see also WP:INDISCRIMINATE). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category system sorts this much better than this article could ever hope to with only 10% of the information. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created a television template after Template: List of films by letter. The template is Template: List of television programs by letter. I'm recruiting the frequent editor of List of television programs by name to help me in the move. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saved the page in my User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker/sandbox, so deletion is safe now. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect I moved the entirety of that page to Template: List of television programs by letter and even fixed some order issues. The first two were tough due to being in a different list format but the rest were a breeze. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if anyone knows how I could get a section next to another rather than below, the information would be much appreciated. I originally copied the film format completely, but the colon function made the alphabetical list really hard to follow. The colon function would work really well with say BA and BE next to each other. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The list has been split to separate pages, but still exists, so the history should be retained; redirect to List of television programs#Listings by name. Peter James (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I suppose because of what is said above, or else I would've simply suggested deleting altogether as this is too wide of a subject for a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Whitney Thompson[edit]

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

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an anonymous editor, whose rationale (from the talk page) is included verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation - except to note that there are severe problems with the few references that are present. One ref about an award goes to the subject's website, for example. That's a concern. Note also that the first AFD closed in January 2012 as no consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion, but I'm not a registered user, so can't move the process forward. This page is clearly self-promotional, and the man is not notable. 64.206.234.106 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Nemo[reply]

• Delete. Not genuinely notable, and the coverage is largely of the related company not the subject himself. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#blake_whitney_thompson where somebody, apparently the subject, requests deletion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet WP:BIO, insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be a relatively minor real estate developer with little coverage of himself as a person at all, and no non-perfunctory coverage of his developments and proposals. More to the point - never got any mention in NYT or the other major sources one would expect. Collect (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BIOSPAM ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The IP who asserts identity with the person who is the subject of the BLP appears to be acting as "owner" of this BLP, which does not make me comfortable with anything other than a "Snow Delete" result - Wikipedia should not be used as a personal advertising medium. Alas. Collect (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Run of the mill coverage of a property developer deemed noteworthy because of his age. This touches upon the concept of ONEEVENT. Possibly a NOT YET situation. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Perhaps simply not enough solidly convincing coverage overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack sufficient notability to distinguish it from its related disorder, schizophrenia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integration disorder[edit]

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

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

The topic is completely redundant with "schizophrenia", where the name change is already discussed. These two subjects are the same thing, just renamed in Japanese for political correctness (and increased accuracy). The Japanese page for 精神分裂病 (=schizophrenia) is simply a redirect to 統合失調症 (="integration disorder"). The Japanese article says: "日本では2002年まで、精神分裂病（せいしんぶんれつびょう）と呼ばれていた。", meaning, "In Japan, it was known as 'schizophrenia' until 2002." Promiment Japanese-English dictionaries (WWWJDIC and EIJIRO) still provide "schizophrenia" as a translation for 統合失調症. Since the name change is already discussed on the English Wikipedia article for schizophrenia, this article serves no purpose; it is redundant. If Japanese Wikipedia doesn't need two articles for it, neither do we. The name change is also discussed on the social construction of schizophrenia page. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the nominator says, the English article on schizophrenia already covers details of the name change. "Integration disorder" is a literal translation of the kanji characters which make up the current name, but that is not a reason for having a separate article on the same disorder. It has averaged about 13 page views a day over the last three months. Is that enough to warrant a redirect? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, so long as the article for schizophrenia includes some of this article's content. 8bitW (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perhaps as I, at first, thought this was a keepable article but there are now questionable signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:EUPHEMISM of an article. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Braun (company). The article's subject is found to lack the notability required for a stand-alone article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Braun KM 3[edit]

Braun KM 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Product that is not notable on its own. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Braun (company). This article looks like a virtually verbatim translation of the last sentence in the kitchen products section of the German Wikipedia article about Braun GMBH ("Küchenmaschinen" subsection). Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge at best as there simply are not signs of a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Braun (company) - Can't find anything online although I'd imagine there's a few sources offline, Personally like above it seems better to merge than delete. –Davey2010^Talk 18:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potato filling[edit]

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

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

It's a recipe. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although I found a bunch of recipes, I could not find any sources that talk about this Pennsylvania Dutch recipe (e.g. its origins, its popularity, etc). Therefore, this should be deleted pursuant to WP:GNG and WP:NOTRECIPE. Any discussion about the general use of potatoes as a filling should be included at Potato#Culinary uses. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up comment: North America, your ability to find relevant sources is amazing. Well done! I am changing my vote to keep based on the sources provided below. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – A historical topic that comfortably passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. Since the dish is centuries-old, additional offline sources are very likely available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The page doesn't have significant how-to problems and, even if it did, that wouldn't be a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw and Keep BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 22:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Tetreault[edit]

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

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL or WP:MUSICBIO. Article is just barely referenced with WP:Primary sources, and I can find no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources, just lots of self-promotion on social media. Prod contested without explanation by article creator. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:A7. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 18:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Meyer (High Commissioner)[edit]

Kurt Meyer (High Commissioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP :BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. being ambassador to Cook Islands is a very minor role. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Diplomats can be notable if there's enough reliable source coverage of their careers as diplomats to get them over WP:GNG, but are not granted an automatic presumption of notability because diplomat — if you have to park the sourcing entirely on a simple namecheck of his existence in a news blurb which is actually about the appointment of his successor, then you haven't gotten him over the bar. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as pointed out above, diplomats are not automatically notable, and this one does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Sounds [1], [2], like a competent diplomat, just not enough coverage at this point in hi s career for an article.12:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - No signs of better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Esquivalience ^t 00:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rezan[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability. I removed some inappropriate external links and some blatant WP:OR, but issues still remain with the article. I tagged it with notability but an IP keeps removing tag. None of the cited references demonstrate notability and the article remains a mess of original research and self-promotion. Her roles in TV and film appear to be very minor and not in notable productions anyways. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - She is only covered in the sources provided in passing mention, lacking significant notability. Also, I restored the OR and Notability tags back to the page. Meatsgains (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment an IP keeps removing the AfD notice from the page, which I've restored. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, easily meets GNG. The article need deep cleaning, but that is something that can be done.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether she is notable or not, but I do know that Cwobeel's comment should be given very little weight by the closing administrator, unless he or she substantiates the statement: just saying "easily meets GNG", without explaining why or providing verifiable sources, is of little if any value: see WP:ITSNOTABLE. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't read Greek, but Google Translate shows that she's profiled in Greek Marie Claire, and interviewed in Greek Cosmo. I'm not sure about the other magazines, as I'm not familiar with them. Someone should ping editors who are familiar with Greek to help out on this. She may be notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this what you're talking about?. It's not exactly a profile, it's about 4 paragraphs long and has a single quote from her. The Greek Cosmo article is a little bit longer, but it's rather brief. There's still no reliable coverage of her outside of Greece (that I'm aware of), and anyways these are just two short articles. Personally I don't think these two alone are enough to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps for now at least as this seems enough for a current article. Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as the current coverage is something....but not entirely convincing. This may become a better article but I'm not seeing the obvious signs yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A feature in greek Cosmo alone should be enough to show notability. The only deletion argument I can see is wp:TNT and it's not bad enough for that. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a feature, it's a brief interview: [3]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the subject did make the cover of that Cosmopolitan issue so with the other magazine coverage seems to only just pass WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (The delete !vote was the first ever edit made by the user, Other than that clear keep.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Kipton Cronkite[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a socialite and entrepreneur, making no substantive claim of notability for either title — as written, this article just asserts that he exists, and then turns straight into a WP:COATRACK for his family genealogy instead of adding any substance to clarify why his existence would warrant the attention of an encyclopedia as of yet. And the volume of sourcing present isn't enough to get him over WP:GNG, either: once you exclude the user-generated referencing for the genealogy, two of the three remaining sources are local community publications of the type that would be acceptable for supplementary confirmation of facts after an article had already passed GNG, but are not widely distributed enough to be the GNG, and the one remaining source that is fully satisfactory toward the passage of GNG isn't substantive enough to get him over GNG by itself as the only GNG-compliant source. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes the GNG. Article's main problem is that it's a stub. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources cited by Northamerica substantiate Mr. Cronkite's notability, pursuant to WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this lousy article even though page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, because WP:GNG sourcing:[4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing of news value or informational value here. Self promoting.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummi Nazeera[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person. Had tagged for speedy deletion but an IP user removed the tag so am bringing here to AfD. The first reference given is a link to a listing in a directory. Second link goes to a page that does not mention the subject's name anywhere. A Google search turns up Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, IMDb, YouTube, and the like, most of these in Malaysian. If there are viable Malaysian sources, I could not evaluate these, but I could see nothing in English that supports a notability claim. KDS4444^Talk 17:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am finding a fairly large amount of secondary sources about the subject, though not in English. This may satisfy WP:GNG.

• Okay, but who are you and can you add at least two of these to the article so that other editors can verify this? Thanks! Also: I've looked at the Malaysian Wikipedia for this article, and that article has the same two problematic references as this English one does (it looks like the English article was directly translated from Malaysian). We need reliable independent references to in order to retain this. KDS4444^Talk 10:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Quite questionably notable currently for WP:CREATIVE, no better context. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. minimal participation, but the decision is clear enough DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Chizurum Ajuka[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially a copyvio of http://www.rccssc.ca/index.php/history-of-rccss-c. Why did nobody check previously? DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal College of Chiropractic Sports Sciences[edit]

Royal College of Chiropractic Sports Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable chiropractic organization. Sources are from the org itself, and a Google search turned up very little to pass GNG. Delta13C (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organization does have a royal charter with is notable recognition in itself. However I found a lot of close paraphrasing from the RCCSS web site here: Duplication Detector

• Can you link to the information about royal charters conveying notability? I am having a difficult time finding reliable sources, independent of the chiro org itself, for this charter. Delta13C (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For Canada, the requirements can be found on the Privy Office web site here under the heading "Criteria for the Title "Royal". Blue Riband► 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Riband►. This information is helpful for understanding how and why any organization is granted a "royal" charter. I am still looking for information to verify that this is indeed true for the RCCSS and any WP policy whether such a designation conveys notability, per WP:GNG or any other. Delta13C (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please clarify your comment for me SwisterTwister? Do you mean that being given a royal charter is not enough to constitute notability? or do you mean that the available sources are not sufficient to show notability? or am I missing your point altogether? Thanks. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:6811:11F8:700D:ECAC (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting to be shown how a royal charter conveys notability per WP policy. Delta13C (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Observational astronomy. The question is whether to delete first. We do that when there is something that actually should be removed from the history, such as copyvio or promotionalism or total confusion. But this is just a harmless poorly written essay. I do not think there's anything mergable, but if anyone does, it's there in the history. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial observation[edit]

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

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

Even if the vague statements and factual errors of the article were remedied, this article would be entirely redundant with Observational astronomy and Celestial navigation. These issues are discussed more fully on the article's talk page. Astro4686 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Subsume into the 2 other articles mentioned. It is indeed redundant. Oppose redirection and deletion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, then recreate as a redirect to Observational astronomy. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Observational astronomy. I agree with the nom that the article is poorly written, but I don't see any problem dire enough (e.g., copyvio, BLP issue, nonexistent concept) to force a deletion of the article's history. A simple search in GScholar and GBooks shows the term is verifiable as being used in the celestial navigation literature and I expect that it is used as a general synonym for a general astronomical observation, too. Observational astronomy is the more general article, so best redirected there. --Mark viking (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as this seems best, no solid thoughts for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Subsume / merge with existing articles. If any relevant information is contained here, it shouldn't be lost due to deletion. 8bitW (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator. Thanks, everyone, for your participation in this discussion. Regarding the votes to subsume, I really don't think that there's anything worth preserving in the article; even if the factual errors are corrected, it would merely duplicate content (mostly in Observational astronomy). But if someone thinks that there is specific information worth merging, please let me know. As for the AfD outcome, I still feel that deletion would be preferable given the magnitude of the problems, but I'd be OK with a redirect without deletion. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Henry Samueli#Health. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samueli Institute[edit]

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

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. Sources are poor with close ties to the organization. An additional search turned up no reliable, third-party sources to substantiate notability. Organization is best known for promoting homeopathy and other alt-med. Delta13C (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. One high-quality source, anyway: A lengthy, detailed, balanced 2005 Washington Post article about the Institute: [5]. There are other sources that describe the Samuelis' philanthropy in more general terms, and an option might be to selectively merge and redirect this to the discussion of its well-known founder's philanthropic activities in the health sector at Henry Samueli#Health.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect without merging to Henry Samueli#Health. The article as currently written is promotional boosterism and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING.--Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 07:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as this seems questionably solid for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think redirect is the appropriate outcome here. Delta13C (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rieul (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

Unused disambiguation, they have different words, though very close. 333-blue 23:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TWODABS. Actually, it's the same spelling, but a hatnote in Rieul is just fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and copyedit - neither is a clear primary topic: Google search results first page gives a mixture; page hits on our articles in December were 77 for the bishop and 55 for the Korean character ([6], [7]): Noyster (talk), 09:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I have changed the hatnote on Rieul to offer a one-step link to the Korean character instead of two. I note that the dab page is also nominated for speedy deletion. PamD 12:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've declined the speedy. It's not clear cut enough for a speedy, as the !votes here indicate. GedUK  13:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ged UK: It seems pretty clear to me, if we accept that the bishop is the primary topic. If anyone disagrees with that, then this is the wrong place for the discussion: there should be a WP:RM proposal to move Rieul to Rieul (bishop) or some other title, leaving Rieul free to be the dab page (if no primary topic) or the hangul (if it is agreed to be primary topic). But a dab page with "(disambiguation)" in its title, and which includes only the page at base name and one other page, is a clear case of an unnecessary dab page. I have cleaned up this dab page per WP:MOSDAB, where previously it had an unexplained piped link from a variant spelling not present in the target article (ie Rieul (hangul) does not mention "Reul" - perhaps it was just a typo in the original dab page creation along with bolding and piping). PamD 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The typo did fuzzy it for me, however, this AfD has a keep and a delete, so it's clearly not clear enough for a CSD. GedUK  08:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only "Keep" so far is on the basis that neither is the primary topic - but at present the bishop is the primary topic. Any debate as to whether he is or isn't primary topic should be taking place elsewhere, like WP:RM. PamD 12:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WP:TWODABS, per ClarityFiend. if neither is primary then that should be decided by a RM, but I too am unconvinced by that argument.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Rieul (disambiguation) → Rieul and Rieul → Rieul (bishop). I don't believe that there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. In addition, the disambiguation should include a see also for Saint-Rieul, which would bring it up to three links. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I avidly considered this but was not certain how and where this AfD was going to go. Delete at best I suppose as I had waited quite some time to comment and I suppose deleting is best. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to lack of primary topic, and then list it at WP:RM if needed, or just boldly do the moves that Tavix suggested. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Article's been significently improved/sourced since nomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Yugoslavia)[edit]

Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of significance, no sources. NeedAGoodUsername (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be added as part of student assignment (indicated on the talk page of the article). Dwebsterbu (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added several sources that cover the Yugoslav commission for truth and reconciliation in depth. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - was WP:BEFORE followed in this nomination? Neonchameleon (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Upon a review of sources, meets WP:GNG/WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this seems convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is probably an article here if somebody gets down to writing it. Topic passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sword (Ace Comics)[edit]

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

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

non-notable comic book character, doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG--Prisencolin (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Failed my WP:GNG check, although these aren't exactly the easiest terms to search for, given how generic they are. Even including the "-wikipedia" meant to keep out sites that just get their text from here still gives a bunch of sites that get their text from here. At any rate, this article is basically just a very short plot summary. Fictional characters need to have real world notability, but the article doesn't assert that this character does, just that it exists. That's not enough. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Either into a List of Golden Age Characters or Ace Comics, if suitable. If not, then Delete. Killer Moff (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simply and mention any basic information at the main Sword comics article, nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft space. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIRINC[edit]

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

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

This article is written like an advertisement for AIRINC, and has zero references to reliable sources. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I found this and this, which is perhaps enough; but all other mentions seem to be of data generated by these folks. We could possibly make an argument for inclusion based on the widespread use of their data as a source in the media, too [8]. There isn't very much stuff out there, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator. This should have been PRODded under G11: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." I believe that this is the case here: this so-called article reads like advertising copy. But if I'm not mistaken, it's generally considered bad form to propose a speedy on a page that's already under discussion. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 07:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing convincing enough to suggest better satisfying the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  "Associates for International Research" has coverage at investing.businessweek.com, which tends to have inclusion criteria similar to Wikipedia's, has a corporate model that requires that their information be reliable, and has an army of reporters.  Google scholar for "Associates for International Research" shows 48 results.  "AIRINC" has 138 hits, and a snippet on the first page in a 1982 source reads, "Each year AIRINC staff conduct price surveys for over 300 goods and services weighted to represent typical purchases of executive families at two income levels, $35,000 and $70,000".  Two articles, one a national source, and one an international source, with in-depth reliable information satisfies the WP:GNG guideline, lots more at Google Scholar to review, and no one has mentioned if they have looked at Google books.  There are certainly negative things to be said about the article, like there is no infobox, we don't know the number of employees or annual income, and there is no history.  But the reality is that this is what Wikipedia has accomplished with this article up to the year 2016.  The complaint that it is written like an advertisement is a stretch for my imagination, and I suspect that this is the sense intended by the nomination.  It is an international business in business since 1954.  Yes, prod might have been a better choice.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft space. Of the sources in the article, they are either mentions of the subject as a source for data, or a clear press release. Perhaps the others will show notability , but they have to be actually found and added. And the full context in the JSTOR article needs to be checked. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio WK-3000[edit]

Casio WK-3000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just a list of specifications, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is pretty useless. I don't mind it being deleted.

I made it a long time ago, not entirely sure what I was thinking at the time.

Tundra010 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is possible that it is notable, if there are major reviews,but it would be easy enough to reconstruct it if there are DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James & Alice[edit]

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

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

No sources that confirm that the film is in production, or any other news. Nairspecht (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: I can only guess that your search skills are limited, as filming is under way and there IS news. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Then my only request to you and other editors of the page is to add those sources of news which ARE apparently present and which talk about the film being under way. I now know that your editing and formatting skills are not limited; keep it up. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: Thank you, but I wish to elucidate with two advices: 1) per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:DINC, the threat of deletion is not supposed to be used to force improvements by others (that's what cleanup tags are for), and 2), per WP:NRVE, notability is determined by sources being available for use and not in their ever being used. WP:SEP? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Requesting a page for deletion is not a threat, per se; it just notifies the creator that he/she at least add one or two strong sources just so that the notability can be confirmed. Cleanup tags come to the picture only if there are some sources already cited. So I agree with all the points, and like you, even I want Wikipedia to be filled with authentic, useful articles. Lets end this debate and re-notify the creator to add a source or two, or heck, lets add them ourselves? Shall we? Cheers. Nairspecht (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: When your initial deletion argument has been refuted through proof being offered of 1) filming having begun and 2) the project getting news... and you agree, but this AFD remains open (despite it being shown that the production meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3)), there still remains the "threat of deletion". However, rather than wait for someone else to do it, I have expanded and sourced to support my own keep opinion, thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: That's great; keep contributing.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And using some alts:

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

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

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

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

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

and per WP:INDAFD: "James & Alice" "Sujith Vasudev" "Krishnan Sethukumar" "Prithviraj Sukumaran" "Vedhika"

• Keep as the film's production is getting coverage and as Sify tells us that filming is under way: "...currently shooting for Sujith Vaassudev’s James & Alice", WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Wow... who failed in their WP:BEFORE?? It serves the project for this film topic to remain and grow through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Others may compare the unsourced stub that was first brought to AFD against what it is now. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this seems better now thus acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Cerletty[edit]

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

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

It appears that Mr Cerletty is cetainly an accomplished artist, with any number of shows in any number of galleries.

The issue here is whether Mr Cerletty meets the "WP:ARTIST" criteria. It would appear from a simple google search that the article fails any or all of those criteria:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
• The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
• The person's work (or works) either
  • (a) has become a significant monument,
  • (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition,
  • (c) has won significant critical attention, or
  • (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I note that this article has been "WP:G7" deleted a number of times. I think it needs a discussion like this. Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY Mathew Cerletty is a regarded as an important artist in his generation. His work is included in the permanent collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art and he has been featured and reviewed in major international papers and magazines as The New York Times, Frieze, Art In America, Interview Magazine, Artforum and Vanity Fair among others. He is widely cited by peers, proof of that being his current inclusion in a major figuration show at the Whitney Museum. Augustegevaert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustegevaert (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 12:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article fails any or all of those criteria The article doesn't have to meet all those criteria. Per WP:BIO People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. It appears that Cerletti meets at least some of the criteria; The Whitney Museum owns one of his works^[1], and his work has been reviewed by the New York Times^[2].

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources provided by Mduvekot. Pburka (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a notable museum owns one of his works and his work has been reviewed in RS(NYTimes), I think WP:GNG has been passedAtlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps for now as because we now have at least something confirming those exhibitions, some coverage is at least found. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okinawa Wrestling-Championship[edit]

Okinawa Wrestling-Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable wrestling championship. There is no significant coverage of this championship. All of the references just point to a list of wrestlers who have won the title. I also don't believe the sponsoring organization is notable, but I didn't want to clutter this discussion.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason--a lack of significant coverage.

MWF World Tag Team-Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MWF World Junior Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and also for the same reason. The annual tournament occurred once and the article is unsourced.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiki Chiki-Okinawa Pro Tag Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment the creator of this article is recreating articles previously created by sockpuppets of banned user Martimc123. He has just added hyphens to the article titles (for whatever reason). This article was previously created at Okinawa Wrestling Championship and was deleted per WP:G5. Investigation and confirmation of sockpuppetry here. I'm tempted to believe this is another sockpuppet. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and also for the same reason (these were all created by the same author/sockpuppet)Peter Rehse (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occured only in one month of one year

IWGP Provisional Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Occured over a short period of time 2011-2012 with very little coverage.

Chiba six Man Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• delete - Speedy?? Per nom and comments. MPJ-US  20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting disturbed by the mass creation of a number of similar articles of questionable notability (some with clear copyright violations) by what appears to be the same author under different names. Can't really append them here since this AfD has been active too long for fresh additions. User:Yu--gi-oh-gxx, User:Lovelucha, User:DragonballLover and IP:193.236.57.121 all appear to be sockpuppts of User:Martimc123 who was banned for abusing multiple accounts.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice since all but Lovelucha and DragonballLover have been since blocked as sockpuppts of Martimc123 -those two were not checked.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I suppose, draft and userfy I'd needed, and restart later if better. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the subjects on this nomination are notable even if the articles were re-written by a competent editor. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 01:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all None of these articles have significant and independent coverage of their subjects. Papaursa (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Don't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There have been no policy backed arguments made for the retention of this article. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love Fell on Me[edit]

Love Fell on Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Album is not notable. Delete or redirect to artist. KDS4444^Talk 15:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps as I would also consider simply moving but deleting may be best for now. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the artist is considered notable such as having an article yet has only recorded two albulms then those albulms must be notable.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not not much weight will be given to this because not all albums of artists can basically have a separate article. With this said, I hope this can be relisted a third and last time if needed for better consensus. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Second City (film)[edit]

The Second City (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Film that has yet to start production, only references are to a blog. See also Turn Back Time (film) Wgolf (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for at kindest being TOO SOON. if production begins and if it gets coverage, this can always be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it hasn't started production yet, it's WP:TOOSOON. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Not finding sources to qualify an article per WP:NF/WP:NFSOURCES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too soon, not enough coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As no reliable, independent sources covering Elizabeth specifically and significantly have been presented, the arguments for retention are not backed by policy. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Elizabeth[edit]

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

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

Does not meet GNG, NAUTHOR or REALITYTV. Also quite PROMO, but not to the level of nuking it. Just not notable. John from Idegon (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - with all the additions since the nomination, perhaps it has reached the level where TNT would be appropriate per PROMO. John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although she did get cited a little after publicatino of Poverty Sucks, it was just a few mentions [9], not reviews of the book'; no alone profiles/interviews that enable sourcing of a bio with RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-Delete - all the additions since the nomination were done in an effort to correct the issues described that led to nomination. More references from varied sources to show notability. Internal and external lists as requested. Photo as requested. Content neutral. Prefer further correction instead of deletion. Suggestions?112233445566 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not yet better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-Delete Subject is well-known nationally and accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.30.229 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — 68.227.30.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Non-Delete Aimee Elizabeth is an internationally known reality tv personality and best selling author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.133.14 (talk • contribs) — 146.199.133.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Subject is an expert in her field and has been quoted in highly regarded publications such as Fox Business, US News & World Report, Bankrate.com, Business Insider. Interviews on major television networks, radio and various other publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112233445566 (talk • contribs) You only get to vote once. John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zef Kol Ndoka[edit]

Zef Kol Ndoka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [10])

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

The subject is far below notability threshold: According to a nationalist source ([[11]]) (the only source that confirms his existence) he was one of various irregular soldiers that raised his national flag in Skopje. Complete lack of wp:RS material & obviously not a leading guerilla figure.Alexikoua (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The personage is one of the leaders of the Albanian Revolt of 1912, a co-fighter of Bajram Curri and Mehmet Shpendi, and a respected figure in Mirdita. The "nationalistic" source is titled KUSH E NGRITI I PARI FLAMURIN SHQIPTAR NË SHKUP MË 1912 ? (Who raised the Albanin flag in Skopje in 1912) and as far as this article is concerned is pretty reliable. The other source that the nominator ignores is a didactic history book of 1968, with confirmed Albanian historians as authors (between others Alex Buda), and printed in Pristina, Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo by Yugoslav authorities. OCLC 1906502. --Mondiad (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Ndoka is attested in the scholarship though as Zefi i Vogël. I added two sources for the time being that are wp:reliable and wp:secondary. For example Skendi notes that Ndoka was one of the leaders who were part of the 1912 revolt that also captured Skopje. That event was significant for the Albanian movement at the time and their demands for autonomy and rights from the Ottomans. Ndoka's role in being part of that and leading it warrants this article remaining. I do admit this article needs work and any unreliable sources used in this article should be removed. However there are sources attesting to the existence of the person and pivitol role Ndoka played regarding the Albanian national movement at that point in time. There are similar articles such as this on Greek fighters (i.e Evangelos Natsis, Konstantinos Mazarakis-Ainian, Pavlos Melas, Alexandros Othonaios, Michael Sionidis, Georgios Tsontos etc) who also have problem issues with their sources (or barely if any), though they exist and there is no deletion discussion about those articles. The additions of sources i made to this article should remedy the matter somewhat. Article should stay and hopefully inn future expanded by editors.Resnjari (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I lack the language skills to make a call either way regarding significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject per WP:GNG, but it does appear that Zefi i Vogël (which I assume is an alternative name) has a couple of mentions in a Google Books search (here), so perhaps, given what other editors have said, it deserves the benefit of the doubt. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the current sourcing seems enough and familiar attention will benefit. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources to this. Conclusion??--Albanian Historian (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to have sufficient notability to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radoljub Kanjevac[edit]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable mobster. Fails GNG. Quis separabit? 17:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You did not do WP:Before. Russell, Jesse; Cohn, Ronald (2012). Radoljub Kanjevac (Book on Demand). p. 156. ISBN 5511787213. ISBN 978551178721. book. There are also news reports. I would acknowledge that the citatoins are very poor, and need to be improved. I would think that the absence of Serbian-fluent (combined with English-fluent) editors (and those who are in a position to read and understand the articles, and then cite them in wikipedia) is part of a systemic bias. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked for GNG (see [12], [13], [14], for example) and found nothing notable. A reference in a book on amazon.com does not automatically confer notability, btw. There are notable mobsters and non-notable ones. Quis separabit? 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if the "book" just added here (and as a reference to the article) is in fact a wikipedia "reprint", as seems to be the case for all the Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn efforts? We don't usually quote Wikipedia reprints as the source of verification of the Wikipedia content. By the way, the ISBN has been pulled off the Amazon list, even though it shows on Google. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is 156 pages long. So where is that lengthy content titled Radoljub Kanjevac in Wikipedia? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn efforts fool you by presenting huge page numbers. But they present collections of Wikipedia articles that are "related" and thus the page numbers are really quite arbitrary, making you think these are real books. Notice how the book doesn't exist on Amazon or as an e-book? At least this is the case as far as I know. Were you actually able to open the book and find 156 pages, or did you in good faith rely on the front page Google info, not noticing it says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" I am sorry but I think you may have fallen for a reprint scam that Amazon delisted a few years back but Google hasn't woken up to yet !! FeatherPluma (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only know what google tells me. I have no stock in the publishing, and no affection for Radoljub Kanjevac either. He is either notable (which should be ascertained WP:BEFORE trying to delete the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am being very nice, trying to help you. Maybe let's see if I can make things clearer. This "book" is a Wikipedia content reprint. Google says so. In CAPITALS (as quoted above). So this "book" is not anything close to a reliable source. Relying on that one Google page without noticing that it explicitly admits this is reprinted Wikipedia content and without checking what the 156 page claim represents is an understandable mistake. Lots of people fell for this a few years ago. However, the "source" explicitly says it's a Wikipedia reprint and the page count misleads you because this scam collates "related" articles to the title in the "book". I gave you a bit more explanation on your Talk page, with links to demonstrate the issue. Nobody is going to BUY this crap BEFORE junking this "book" as a non-reliable source, and I have explained why. In fact, Amazon doesn't even list this author or this "publisher" in its sales list any more. I was just explaining why I will remove your addition of this useless source from the article. Best wishes. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Please see below.)Delete In brief: I agree with the nominator: we do not seem to have sources to establish notability. In detail: The "best" thing I found was [15]. But I don't see it as meeting the notability threshold. The new "book" reference has been removed. It's a Wikipedia content reprint of this article from 2012. I also found an 86 page paperback by Lambert M Surhone, Mariam T Tennoe , Susan F Henssonow, published in 2010 by the scam artists at infobeam for $46, of this article "and other related Wikipedia content". You can find it on the infobeam site, but I can't link it here, as it is Wikipedia blacklisted as a known problem URL. I noticed that the preview of the first 120 words or so on the infobeam site has the EXACT language in the 2010 version of the article here. A pointer to the infobeam "book" is also at http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9786131364204. But that ISBN doesn't pull anything up on Amazon. Google indicates no e-book version, and all links to paper versions go nowhere. Various news articles I found (about 6 on repeated searching and searching) are small town, hoodlum, mobster blow-by-blow, very low brow unencyclopedic stuff, as far as I can discern from automated translations. There are some pictures that seem to be of a particular consistent person, and one wobbly source mentions his name in a one sentence passing allusion to his being one of 3 mobsters killed in a 5 year span in Niš. So we seem to have an article that at least two content reprint scam shops have tried to bilk for money, even though the 3 remaining "references" in the article are completely obscure. For example, ref 3 is to "Danas", not otherwise specified, which is completely useless, and the other 2 are basically just as useless as well. It would appear this bloke did exist, but wasn't someone who meets GNG. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strike initial response. Although all correct when written, things have moved on: see below. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you click on "NEWS" above you do get two links.

Kosovo puno dragog kamenja

Вечерње Новости-Mar 18, 2012

d poznatijih žestokih niških momaka Radoljub Kanjevac (35) ubijen je 1. jul 2006KRAGUJEVAC – Na Kosovu i Metohiji postoje značajne količine dragog kamena ::hrizoprasa (chryzoprase), koji u poređenju sa tim kamenom iz ...

U cevima barut i heroin

Вечерње Новости-Jun 25, 2010

JEDAN od poznatijih žestokih niških momaka Radoljub Kanjevac (35) ubijen je 1. jul 2006. ispred zgrade u Ulici Božidara Adžije 66. * U Ulici ...

Whether they establish notability we don't know. You apparently don't read Serbian either. But they do exist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In brief: Whether they establish notability we do know - neither article does. In detail: Because it's a foreign language, we push it through Google Translate. We then look at the output, and use what we have learned of European language grammars to confirm the contents to a reasonable degree. We then discern the merits of much if not all of the content. By practice with languages we know well and those we know less well, we gradually improve across the board. I examined both articles. (Sometimes the machine translation fails to give adequate text. In one AfD case, I took the language in question to two competent linguists for help. We go the extra mile when necessary.) I summarized these two articles as not establishing notability. I kept searching. I pointed to a different source that I judged as more closely approximating notability, but nonetheless not getting there: [16]. I spent a few hours going through this (as I was multitasking an off-wiki activity) so I am confident that WP:Before has been properly performed. In general, I have added foreign sources to Wikipedia articles when it's appropriate - I have no xenophobic hangups and I will happily save as many articles as possible. I try to add references to articles, and research things - that's much of what I do here. You missed the fact that the book you added as a reference was a dud. You are now making much of your own individual inability to make a good faith assessment of these two articles. I am not fluent in Serbian but I can make a reasonable assessment nonetheless. So in the end we use Wikipedia policy. It's not that the bloke existed, or that low brow mentions were made in the news media, it's whether the sources establish the topic as GNG. That's what my last sentence said, and why I support the nomination of this article for deletion. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Yes, it is about notability per policy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your reply. I appreciate you. Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I WP:AGF. If all the news coverage amounts to bare 'thug kills/killed' and the book doesn't exist (?) then there is nothing there. WP:SingleEvent vs. WP:SIGCOV. However, I feel strongly that WP:Before is the preexisting hurdle that must be spanned before these deletion discussions are initiated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. In brief: Closer, may I please recommend you repost this AfD for additional comments into one overtime period, so that we can offset the seeming absence of notification to Gaston28, the original editor, until now? I want to be as detailed and fair about this as possible. In detail: I just realised there is a procedural step that was missed. Accordingly, I have left notification of this AfD on the initial editor's Talk page. Not a lot of time has passed since this AfD opened, but I think we need to follow all possible avenues. Unfortunately, Gaston28 may not be active, I'm not sure, based on edit dates. However, that editor should be notified (per guideline). In this article, that's all the more important as Gaston28 might be able to provide better details for the 3 "useless" references I cannot trace, despite trying pretty darn hard. I do suspect strongly that the sources may well not be up to par. This supposition arises from their absence on diligent searching, and because Gaston28's edits suggest a local interest in Niš, and the editor seems to have used local reports that would not establish notability. I did track ref 1 to the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs (responsible for local police basically), ref 2 to a local news source [17], and ref 3 to another local paper [18]. I checked all of these with their own search engines, but get "Strana nije pronađena" -- page not found / or the like, with nothing coming up on reconfiguring the search several ways. That said, I also went through the entire article contributor history in detail, to see if anyone else had ever added sources, or modified content in a way that suggested they had reviewed the topic in depth and had access to sources. Nothing else came up, so everything here is fundamentally one person's contribution based on untraceable sources that are given in a malformed way that doesn't really help. I think it is reasonable to conclude that these 3 refs were most likely a brief police report or comment, and filler content from 2 local Niš newspapers. A close read of the article also finds that the (questionable) sourcing is not attached in a way that would support much (maybe 60% or more?) of the text. But I think we need to go the extra mile to try to get the actual original materials for review, if they can be traced with Gaston28's help. If not, I will continue to recommend deletion as non-notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep, carried down here from above). In brief: "Significant" coverage is unequivocally met from the perspective of "extent of coverage within several sources", in that there are 9 newly added references, each principally about this topic. In regard to the other potential aspect of "significant" coverage, the "fundamental importance of the issue", this is reasonably met also, although less unambiguously. In detail: The initial input is struck. Although the search engines came up empty of meaningful sources at first, providing only Wikipedia reprints and what looked in context to be relatively isolated brief mentions, by reconfiguring the searches primary language to be Serbian Cyrillic and then doing multiple reruns of suggested approaches using specifically Serbian Latin scripts, I found a Глас Јавности reference, and from there managed to gradually backtrack and get replacement references for all of the material that the original editor had referenced with 3 "useless" references that pointed nowhere. At this point, over 95% of the article is rigorously cited, versus 0% when AfD nominated. The article has essentially been rewritten, point by confirmed point. Only 3 relatively insignificant points, not essential to the article's meaning or direction, remain to be cited. I am pretty sure I had a source for one of these, but I've mislaid it for now. While the "fundamental importance of the issue" is admittedly subjective to some academic extent, it seems fair to say that the topic of the article is significant enough to retained. Compared to many other articles that survive AfD (read either as participant or as benchmarking yardsticks), this article is quite reasonably above threshold. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete While sources in Cyrillic and other alphabets are, of course, acceptable, it is extremely unusual to have an article with no sources in any Latin alphabet, and no links from any other page. I have been unable to find a single reliable source in a language I can search in. (Question Do we have a policy permitting articles on topics that have notability in some other language, but no notability in the English-speaking world?) To me, it appears that while this gangster may well be notable for the Serbian-language Wikipedia, he is not notable for the English-language Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YGBSM We have tons of articles in other languages. E.g., cited to Chinese, Indian and Japanese, for example. And your solution is to delete, without regard to improvement? 7&6=thirteen (☎)

• My point here is that I would like to see some evidence of notability beyond Serbia, and that a.) very, very few editors on this Anglophone encyclopedia are able to examine any sources that mention this man, and b.) significant and reliable coverage of his career in English would support notability. Failing that, I doubt that he passes GNG, just as I doubt that many Australian or Canadian gangsters have pages in non-English language editions of Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian may be in Cyrillic or in Latin script, with either of at least two scripting conventions. That you didn't notice that some of the references are in Latin script suggests you didn't look at the article very hard. That said, your bigger point does have some traction. He was "merely" one of 3 or 4 mob bosses in Serbia's second largest city, who sustained repeated assassination attempts and the legal system issues. I am presently aware of no good English language source. WP:NONENG is permissive of foreign language sourcing, but is not declarative of adequacy (or inadequacy) for notability if ONLY such sources exist. There is an English language source that I did not add, which denotes in its header that it is the work of Jadranka Tasić, who is an established newspaper journalist who is known (from statements in the other sources) to have worked with RK previously, and who was in contact with him again the week before his assassination. I did not add it to the reference list, because it had a bloggy feel to it, and I couldn't find the exact corresponding Serbian original, although that presumably exists (unless purged). I will see if I can track it down again and add it here. I would prefer not to add it to the article unless there was consensus to do so. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FeatherPluma, what I actually did was run it through a google search on books. Results not encouraging. [19] Then through a google news search. Nothing [20] to persuade me it is notable on an English encyclopedia. However, upon reading your response, I just ran a Proquest news archive search. Sole hit is to BBC Monitoring European labeled: "Text of report by Bosnian Serb news agency SRNA". It's brief, 126 words. headline: "Explosive device activated under car of controversial Serbian businessman", 28 October 2004, no byline, no context beyond the word "controversial": in teh headline: [ http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/459436002/fulltext/2692CF5593D34543PQ/1?accountid=10226]. As far as I can tell, this man has never been discussed outside of the Balkans. The article as it stands does not portray him as involved in political events, or in crimes involving countries outside Serbia/Yugoslavia. I honestly fail to see why this passes notability for an English encyclopedia. I may be wrong. It's not a question I usually encounter at AFD. I encourage editors fresh to this discussion to weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I agree; that's completely valid. I am not sure I have seen this precise issue at AfD either, but I have seen foreign language sources, inter alia, turn a delete to a keep. It will be interesting to see how we collectively parse this out. You are also correct that the "fundamental importance of the topic" is subjective. I think it meets that threshold much more capably than some other things we do have, a benchmark we usually don't usually point to, but which is possibly relevant when we are in a finely balanced situation, with pros and cons. I am not a neutral observer though, and your fresh eyes may be a better guage. The English language book search is a complete dead end: it's all WP reprints. I do not have access through Proquest to the СРНА/SRNA (http://www.srna.rs/) translation. I think this is "Serbian National News Agency"; I would doubt it's "Bosnian Serb" per se, even if the BBC labels it that way; it would be nice to look at. I might well be able to trace the original byline if I had the text to use as a crib. Is there a back door to access the brief transcript, or would you be able to email me a screenshot copy? One contextual point I would mention, however, is the immense cultural impact of organized crime in Serbia in the Milošević and post-Milošević eras, including assassinations of the ex-president and the current prime minister (2003) by gangs (many ex-military or ex-police) that turned out to have connexions to the government and indeed the judiciary. This man was emphatically not a "top 10 player", and there is no suggestion that he was part of, or affiliated with, any of the subsequently disbanded Red Beret operative groups. I think I saw that he was pulled in as one of the "top 150 or so" of the over 11,000 people detained in the 2003 state of emergency. He was one of the people who contended torture during detainment; Amnesty International got fired up about this, and the collective concern (I don't think he was a named name) was carried in the English language media a few months later, including NYT. I did see some speculation or information about his traveling to Germany and about his gang maybe being active abroad, but it seemed wispy, and was at the limits of my translating confidence, so I didn't think to work it up too much, although I could look at it again (yuck, there's only so much I can take of RK !!). FeatherPluma (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cut-and-paste of the full text of the BBC article: " Nis, 28 October: An unknown person activated an explosive device under the Golf 4 car owned by the controversial Radoljub Kanjevac in Nis at around 0210 [0010 gmt] last night. Kanjevac sustained injuries and has been transferred to the clinical centre for treatment. The device was activated as Kanjevac was getting in the car with two other people," the police statement says. This is a third assassination attempt on Kanjevac. Last night's explosion damaged the car and shattered windows of the nearby buildings. The explosion took place in the centre of Nis at the Nikola Pesic Street car park, close to the Kalca shopping centre. Credit: SRNA news agency, Bijeljina, in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 0448 28 Oct 04" Cheers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Thanks for that ! Hmmm. We agree: sort of not much at all, certainly nothing even vaguely analytic or conceptual. (What the credit implies is that СРНА/SRNA released the newsflash in 3 languages, so it's not "Bosnian Serb", but "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian", all 3 languages.) I looked up the Jadranka Tasić source again: "Showdown in Nis Underworld" NISS , 23.7.2006. (Beta) by Jadranka Tasic. This isn't a good source (several issues, including I have no idea who did the translation to English; I feel much more comfortable with an original language editorial source than a translation of unclear lineage), and I am not pushing it. (Also, its URL points to a WP blacklisted site.) I cannot find sources in Sp, Port, Fr, or Pol as far as I can tell on quick looks, so I accept that he very probably never made a ripple outside the Balkans. WP:NLI, a proposal that failed to garner consensus for its implementation within a reasonable period of time, might have been consistent with a Keep for this article, but was maybe not really about this situation. I don't know of any actual policy that would speak against Keep. The nomination indicates "fails WP:GNG" but the relevant section reads, "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." (emphasis added) Beyond GNG general presumption, there are "nonetheless, not" criteria. I did not find any of them as applying. Personally, I am more concerned that this is more "serial news" and not "analysis", than that all 9 references are from Serbia. (or from e.g. Florida). But reading WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "serial news" is not a problem criterion. Overall, I agree this is a difficult article to push into a firm category. Hence, my big messy redactions above. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've done an amazing job cleaning up, sourcing this article. Last year, I stumbled into a somewhat similar situation, 2012 Paros beating and rape. It was at AFD, short and lightly sourced, mostly to Greek Reporter which, while in English, isn't exactly the New York Times. Like you, I dug around in ελληνικά (a language I do not know) In my mind, a couple of things separate the 2 articles, the fact that I did find coverage in the non-Greek European press, and - this was the key - the fact that this rape became a major national political issue in Greece, with (Greek) national news coverage over the course of several years. It was, in short, not an "ordinary" crime. Hope this is a useful comparison.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps as the current sourcing seems convincing enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources are good. leaning towards notability. BabbaQ (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Ramdhanie[edit]

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

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

Couldn't find a single source about her, either in print or online, that corroborates her apparent notability. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So what are all of those references on the bottom of the article? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while I'm personally against paranormal ghost woo stuff, there are sources and she's written up in a lot of books. Try doing a google book search. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because, though she is a fraud she manages to get coverage in RS. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could both of you provide reliable sources? I couldn't find any. How does she pass WP:AUTHOR? She clearly fails general notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on why the numerous sources at the bottom of the article don't qualify in your eyes? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well the burden of proof falls to those arguing keep to produce enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. I conducted a WP:BEFORE search on this individual and Facebook, IMDB, Twitter, and blogspot were the first things to come up which was not a promising sign. I did a search through Google Books and aside from her own published material, she's mentioned in passing a few times but nothing to warrant WP:SIGCOV. In almost every case she was not the subject of the publication or even the chapter. The Irish News source was the most promising one but it's only one source. The rest may very well be good sources but I can't WP:V them. Mkdw^talk 06:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote this article, I did so using my University-provided LexisNexis account. This doesn't allow me to provide a link to the articles as I was reading digitised versions of print media on a private database. It was my understanding that we didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater because not every reference is accessible in an online format.

I am very confused about what's going on. The references at the bottom of the article are quite clearly enough to pass WP:GNG. These are secondary sources from reputable newspapers with in-depth coverage of the subject's work. Given the person's profession isn't primarily as an author ('psychic', 'con-artist', whichever), I don't understand why her BLP is suddenly being judged under these criteria. I had no answer when I initially queried this and without one I can't assist/improve/vote. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @UY Scuti: we relist discussions to seek more consensus but at WP:RELIST it states that generally discussions should not be relisted for a third time. Mkdw^talk 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mkdw: Yes, generally. I relisted this for the third time 'cause there isn't a consensus here, number of commenters are not substantial and your comment was made yesterday. Having taken the discussion is live, I relisted this for the third time with a comment per, Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the ((relist)) template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. Did I do something wrong? If yes, sorry. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is usually done to seek further consensus so when it's stated, " in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice" then the reason for doing so a third time should be due to something beyond simply seeking more consensus. We have no consensus closures to prevent AFD's from going on perpetually. Furthermore, I would argue that we have a policy based consensus here. Albeit one not with a lot of policies, but as someone who closes quite a few AFDs, the burden of proof has not been met almost entirely negating the keep arguments short of WP:ILIKEIT which are WP:ATA. Mkdw^talk 01:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mkdw. This is pretty straightforward. I mean, when references such as "Sandra Ramdhanie describes herself as a psychic-psychologist and ghostbuster and is fascinated by the fast that ghosts seem to spend all their time dragging things around or eternally pacing up and down", "JFK to visit Ireland in the Springtime", or "Sandra Ramdhanie aims to stop randy ghost groping female guests" are used, there's really not much else to add - she is simply a non-notable quack. Wikipedia is not suited for such topics. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 04:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG as far as I can tell. The refs are RS; at least the first three of them seem to provide "significant coverage", don't know about the others. But the fact that user Mkdw can't verify what most of these sources say is not a reason to dismiss them as non-existent. User:Panyd added most of those sources/did the research, and I have no reason to believe that she hallucinated the whole thing and the sources aren't real. WP:V doesn't say that all sources need to be accessible to everyone on the internet. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some extra bits from Google Books to help prove notability (in addition to refs in the article):
    • Paranormal Ireland by Dara de Faoite, Maverick House, 2015
    • Psychic Kids by Lynne Gallagher, Mercier Press, 2007
    • The Paranormal Review, Society for Psychical Research, 1997
    • When Beds Float : Exploring the Poltergeist Enigma by Michael Clarkson, Key Porter Books, 2005 (apparently just a mention but she's called a "well-known psychic")
  • — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this seems to be clear (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sivasailam Temple[edit]

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

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

This article does not have sources to establish notability. @Rahuljeswin: You contested the proposed deletion with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I proposed deletion after looking for potential sources that demonstrate notability but failing to find any. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC) See below. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it's this temple: [21]. Notable Shiva lingam. Hindu temple articles, in fact, India in general, needs editors, improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory, the article you point to appears to be discussing Netroddharakaswami Temple in the village of Panaiyapuram in Villupuram district. The temple the subject of this AFD is in Sivasailam village in Tirunelveli district. So I disagree that it is the same one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - is this keepable per WP:GEOFEAT clause #1. It seems old (1300 years), large and unique enough to be of significant national and/or cultural heritage. We would just need one source saying it has been designated as such. Unfortunately, most such sources would not be in English. E.M.Gregory's source was a good find in that the temple has at least come to the attention of the Indian national government and has significant importance to the locals. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a difficult item to locate on the web, as Tamil is quite poorly supported and many of the documents seem to be scanned as images. However, the temple's website is partly in English: we could do with a Tamil speaker to help here. The geographical website OneFiveNineExploreIndia confirms the existence of the temple at Sivisailam village, and that it is called Paramakalyani Sailapathi Temple, Kadayam Turunelveli (=Tirunelveli District), Tamil Nadu. Wikimapia agrees on the location. Our article on Alwarkurichi town nearby actually has a description of the temple, which it calls "Paramakalyani Samedha Sivasailapathi". So perhaps the article needs its title changed, but it seems undoubtedly notable as a genuine place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravanasamudram: Temples seems a reliable source.

Additional link with photographs: TripAdvisor Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: some of the links you've provided above gives us evidence that the temple exists. But how does that address the question of notability? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing whether it was a real place, as such are considered notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that if a temple merely exists it is automatically notable? I think it requires more than that, such as what is described in WP:GEOFEAT. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At 1300 years old it must be a notable feature, as the few sources in English (here's one more) at least indicate. Like other editors, I strongly suspect most of the sources are in Tamil, and we should enlist a Tamil speaker for assistance on this, as already stated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if the temple is in fact 1300 years old. But our article doesn't make any claim about the temple being 1300 years old. The only time that the number 1300 has been mentioned so far is in the link provided by E.M.Gregory. But as I pointed out, that news article is talking about a different temple in a different district. I agree we need some assistance from a Tamil speaker, because there is very little to help us in English. The latest PDF you've linked to has a one sentence mention in a list of 42 "other important places". Again, there is no mention about how old it is or why it is "an important place". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously beneficial to have as article, although with tags. The present company doesn't have great sources but all believe it exists and is old and surely is covered in other language sources. We know it is notable with probability 99.9% (remote possibility this is a fraud?). Agree that ancient (500 years plus?) temples are effectively geographic features. Avoid western bias/arrogance.--doncram 16:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but we may have to stub it down some as little of what is there is based on reliable sources as far as I can tell (though the author may have translated form reliable Tamil sources). The temple is mentioned briefly in Lists of the Antiquarian Remains in the Presidency of Madras, Volume 1 (1882) ("an old Siva temple of large size, well sculptured and containing inscriptions") and google snippets shows brief mention as a "famous temple" in Madras District Gazetteers: Tirunelveli District ( 2 v.) and mention of the inscriptions in Early South Indian temple architecture: study of Tiruvāliśvaram inscriptions. These are enough to establish that the temple is not some new construction or hoax and in the best tradition of expanding our geographic coverage, we can hope that Tamil sources can be produced in time. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am pleased to change my vote to keep thanks to the effort of 24.151.10.165 to actually find some reliable evidence. The first link provided shows us that this temple is at least 130 years old. That for me is enough to make it worthwhile writing about. Just to be clear, this had absolutely nothing to do with "western bias/arrogance". I merely wanted to see actual evidence instead of bare assertions of 99% confidence. IP 24.151 is also correct in saying that the next task is to stub this down and make it legible. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has been a bit of a mess with a move into Wikipedia space and a redirect from there to a freshly created page Gateway North. Gateway North has been speedy deleted by Mojo Hand, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Redirects are being mopped up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7282 East Point Douglas Road South[edit]

7282 East Point Douglas Road South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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