< 22 November	24 November >

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Zayed Center Tower 2[edit]

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

The subject of this article is an unbuilt building, dating as far back as 2006, and fails general notability guidelines due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Recommending deletion until such time the subject receives said requisite coverage. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't exist. Claims it will be this or that. We are not a crystal ball. We are also not a broken ball. DreamGuy (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. completely impossible to guess whether it will ever be built. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bogusława Knapczyk[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed in the Olympics. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NOLYMPICS. There is a corresponding article in Polish as well with two non-English references. I was able to confirm through at least 1 English reference. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the criteria of WP:NOLYMPICS. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lambert[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG, as sources are not notable. NYTimes article has a single quote from subject. Delta13C (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake. Delta13C (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played rugby union 18 times for the US and appeared at a Rugby World Cup event, per WP:NRU. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NRU and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokers notability guidelines. Mattlore (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Leistner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG. References are all broken links. Delta13C (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promo-style article for non-notable (fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG). Quis separabit? 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG quite severely. 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. --Seduisant (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Marcotte[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG, as all sources are online cyclist websites. Delta13C (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake. Delta13C (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won the United States National Road Race Championships so is clearly notable under WP:ATHLETE.--Racklever (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Racklever. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made this proposal by overlooking WP:ATHLETE, and this was a mistake. Delta13C (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Delta, you can also withdraw this, if you wish. This person meets WP:NCYC as being a US national champion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. Keith McCormick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP, as references come from online chiropractic sources and the NYTimes source is simply a list of athletes. Delta13C (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake. Delta13C (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Keith McCormick (modern pentathlete). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the 1976 Summer Olympics so is notable under WP:ATHLETE.--Racklever (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Racklever and prior AfD discussion. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made this proposal without knowing about WP:ATHLETE. Delta13C (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Reed (chiropractor)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG and has a GNG tag since 2009. References are weak as coming from online chiropractic sources. Article does not meet WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Member of an Olympic team's medical staff and minor coverage of that fact. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable, , just as said above. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply not notable aside from being best known perhaps at the Summer Olympic doctor. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Schroeder[edit]

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

Article seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. References cited are not notable, except for one LATimes article appearing in an opinion-like column. Delta13C (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake. Delta13C (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only competed at the Olympics (WP:NOLYMPICS), but won silver medals too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Singer (chiropractor)[edit]

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

Article contains two references which mention the subject briefly. The LA times article has a couple quotes from David Singer. While I think this is a potentially interesting topic that seems borderline fail for WP:BIO, it perhaps meets WP:GNG and should be merged into the article on Chiropractic. Delta13C (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Almost a real topic, but hidden in this bio that shouldn't be here. Scientology ArbCom decision and so forth might weigh in on if this should go somewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional fluff. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional and non notable, as specified. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Stasiak[edit]

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

Article contains many references but they are all unreliable online publications within the amateur/professional wrestling community. There is not a single major publication covering this subject. Does not seem to meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG. Delta13C (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake. Delta13C (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won multiple WCW/WWF championships. I agree that the sources are poor, but I believe WP:BEFORE would apply in this instance. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tomshack[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:BLP or general notability. References are from fringe publications and online promotional sources. Article is written like an advert. Delta13C (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it gives no reason why anyone should care in another article, let alone this one. DreamGuy (talk)
Delete - Promotional fluff. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete - an entirely promotional article about an subject that does not appear to have any kind of notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makaʻala Yates[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability and is poorly referenced. The subject does not have any reason to be notable, except, according to the article's text is a chiropractor in Hawaii. Delta13C (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article poorly referenced and giving no argument for notability. DreamGuy (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; just another of the ten thousand articles about non-notable people. Would that we had world enough and time to delete them all. --Seduisant (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Thparkth (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Killian[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as a municipal councillor in a township with a population of just 17K — and the fact that his young age made it necessary for his election to accompany a local referendum to lower the age of eligibility to hold office, while marginally interesting as a human interest footnote, is not enough to make him a topic of enduring encyclopedic interest. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL — a city, town or township councillor needs to either serve in a major metropolitan global city, or get over WP:GNG on the basis of a lot more press coverage than has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another NN small-town politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - almost notable. But not quite enough. Thparkth (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Smerge to Ferguson Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania. The referendum that made him eligible to serve, which passed 52% to 48%, could be a sentence in the township's political history. It's slightly interesting because he ran unopposed, illustrating the problem many small communities have: convincing anyone to run. Kudos to him for getting involved, but the coverage is too sparse to convincingly pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN.

Centre County Report is a student media outlet at Penn State. Aside from Business Insider, I only found one other piece from Penn State about a student agricultural competition that has a few sentences about him as a team member, and one other minor quote like the StateCollege.com piece. Further to nom's observations, Ward 3 is just one part of the township. He received 317 votes, and that may overstate his individual appeal, as voters had the option of voting a straight party ballot. Worldbruce (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOL. Searches do not show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rotunda Amusement Park[edit]

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

Non notable amusement park, All results I'm finding are all mentions but that's it, Bar technical edits the last edits were in 2013 and it's remained unsourced since, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC) –Davey2010^Talk 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up some brief mentions on News, Highbeam and Books, but relatively no in-depth coverage except for a single article from a local Folkestone paper. If this were an older park, I would suspect that there might be more non-online coverage, but it closed in 2003, so I would expect more online coverage if it were notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-crisis analytics[edit]

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

No evidence of general notability for this particular method -- it rather seems promotional for a particular book at a particular course -- see User:Olletove/Scandinavian_Institute_of_Business_Analytics. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found nothing in GBooks/Scholar, also searched for "Anti-crisis analysis". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to be an outline of a concept published in a book by Lev Kuandykov, with little coverage outside the book. If anything, it should be renamed and reframed to be about the book, but as it isn't about the book at all currently, it's probably best to delete per WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing in Taiwan[edit]

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

No coherent content. At its clearest it was just a list of training hospitals. Bazj (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a valid article that has been made for many countries. It just looks bad. There is very little information about education required to be a nurse, but enough for me to keep it. WP:PRESERVE Ceosad (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add additional info. to improve the article. Joseph Clay, Jr. (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. I've rewritten the existing information on the article to a more acceptable state. Der yck C. 12:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men Against Sexual Trafficking[edit]

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

Local organization that fails the guidelines in WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 17:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Borderline case, I think, but the sources I'm seeing just don't look to satisfy WP:ORG. e.g. The Londonder, Saultstar, CBC, Digital Journal... all generally local coverage. At first thought there was a nice section in a book, but that book turned out to be published on Lulu.com (self-published). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. purely local organization with no impact elsewhere.. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Just to clarify, it sounds like a delete, but I'm not sure what "1dd" means. Likely a typo? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

typo from my macro program. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Opposing Pornography: A look at the Anti-Pornography Movement by Sarah Durham, together with the coverage given in the article should meet GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Tiny local group who received a few articles in their local paper because they put out a few press releases over a super-local issue ages ago. I have founded groups more notable than this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate notability and coverage of organization in a major metro area. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage seems only local. Rab V (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book Rich has turned up is the self-published one Rhododendrites mentions. The book and the article have almost identical content but I think the book has copied from here (I can't access the attribution page to see if WP has been acknowledged). (If we delete this article any attribution would likely go up the spout anyway!). Thincat (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A mere 87 Google hits for this organization, none of which seem to count to GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local notability is still notability, but this organization doesn't quite reach the threshold of being even locally notable. Thparkth (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 first two "keep" opinions are not policy-based. Sandstein 19:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shae Invidiata[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria of WP:BIO. Local activist, founder of a non-notable organization, source coverage is strictly local and/or only contains minor mentions of the article subject. Kelly ^hi! 16:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Founding organizations to stop human trafficking is a notable accomplishment, I think the article is of poor quality and needs expansion, but I'd like to se someone step in and upgrade it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How does founding an organisation for a cause you like confer notability? Without sources, how do we know it isn't three people in a basement? The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is some seriously weak stuff: to try to justify an article on her, it has a sentence about an event she merely attended (that then names a bunch of other people who also attended), a listing from one random magazine, a quote in a local paper, and a note that she attempted (not even succeeded) to partner with her local police on a pet project. This not only fails WP:BIO, it does it spectacularly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Human trafficking in Canada. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, local sources don't detract from notability. WP:GNG doesn't even address local coverage. It's not a reason to delete if coverage is local. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Their being local doesn't even address the WP:BIO or WP:GNG issues here. Where is the coverage of her, specifically, period? You could write an article on me that would have far more trouble with GNG than this and I am utterly unnotable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just making a point, The Drover's Wife: local coverage does not negate GNG. It's just not a reason for deletion. I commented here above because the nominator uses that argument. I'm not voting on this, just passing through and making sure the arguments are on topic since I see this mistake made a lot. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of provincial media coverage. National or international media coverage not needed for notablity, as that would remove e.g. almost every high school from wikipedia. Martinogk (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straight advocacy, and not separately notable from the organization. It might be possible to have a npov article on the organization, because that's what the refs are mainly about. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I simply found some links at News and browsers....nothing compelling enough for a solid and notable article but feel welcome to redirect where ever necessary. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this subject meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 03:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Marshall Clemens[edit]

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

PROD contested with the rationale that AFD would be more suitable based on him being Mark Twain's father. However, notability is not inherited, and being related to someone famous does not by itself make one notable. Subject fails WP:Notability (people) since he wasn't noted for anything other than family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Twain. Or merge to retain page history, but most if not all of the pertinent info here is already included there. Agree with nom that notability is not inherited, and without his connection to Mark Twain, this person is not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect --- no reliable sources. Could be a footnote in Twain article, but that's it.DreamGuy (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the complicated rules governing wp:AfD, but as a wiki-reader I would be very curious to find ot more about the father of Mark Twain. I cannot believe this discussion has not drawn out more editors? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not exactly a valid reason to keep articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We all know about NOTINHERITED, but the fact that he is best known as Mark Twain's father is not a disqualifier either. Coverage in The Mark Twain Encyclopedia clearly counts as 1 substantial, independently-published source of presumed notability. Let's see if there are more... Searching... 18:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Decent short bio from THE MARK TWAIN PROJECT, that's two towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five mentions listed in the index for the book TWAIN IN HIS OWN TIME edited by Gary Scharnhorst (University of Iowa Press, 2010). Carrite (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The law office of JMC, a justice of the peace and lawyer, is being PRESERVED AS A HISTORICAL MONUMENT. That gets me over the top for GNG — although there are probably a few more things out there if one wants to spend time to find them.

Keep- as a pass of GNG, based on the above. It is a fact that the judge was the father of Mark Twain and that this was his primary claim to historical fame. That is neither here nor there with regards to notability — neither an automatic keep nor an automatic disqualifier. The fact is that he is the subject of scholarly interest and coverage demonstrated in multiple instances of significant coverage in sources of presumed reliability, which is what we are looking for here. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability criteria for biographies (which he fails to meet) is WP:Notability (people). There's more nuance than simply "is covered in reliable sources". Occupations not withstanding, he wasn't really noted for anything of his own merit beyond being Mark Twain's father. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though barely. I found precisely one reference to him in a search of the NY Times archive. There appear to be a few others that barely meet GNG, when WP:GOOGLETESTed, but clearly his main accomplishment was fathering Samuel Clemens. 05:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Fiachra10003 (talk)

Not exactly enough. When only really noted for being Twain's father, he doesn't warrant a separate article no matter how many references are available. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naoufal Benazzouz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP Kleuske (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable kickboxer.Unsourced BLP that in any case does not meet WP:KICK.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP. Even if the claims are true he doesn't meet WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the previous comments hit the nail on the head. An unsourced article does not meet WP:GNG and the achievements listed are both unverified and fail to meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Possible keep~~ – The article states that the subject has competed in a K-1 event, ~~which makes the subject presumed notable as per WP:NKICK.~~ This is presently not sourced in the article, though, so it's still an unsourced BLP.

@PRehse, Mdtemp, and Papaursa: Note that the shortcut WP:KICK presently links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force, which is not a notability guideline/essay, etc. It's a task force page. Perhaps you are referring to WP:NKICK? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NKICK and WP:KICK are identical when it comes to fighter notability. When WP:NKICK was created, it was copied directly from WP:KICK. In addition, Benazzouz does not meet the notability criteria for kickboxers, which includes fighting for a K-1 world title, not merely competing in a K-1 event. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck parts of my comment above. It appears that the subject competed in the preliminary K-1 World Grand Prix tournament to determine who would compete in the K-1 World GP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had an edit conflict. I was going to say that I believe he competed in qualifying events for the final elimination event for the 8 man championship tournament. Papaursa (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)*[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:NKICK or WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Kenn[edit]

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

no apparent evidence of notability as a musician. Not my field, so I may be wrong. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches easily found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 17:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple iTunes releases and an album that never came out doesn't warrant an article. DreamGuy (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC and searches do not show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is clear consensus here to delete this title. I think there's also consensus to replace it with a dab page, but that's less clear. While I'm not going to create the dab page myself, there's certainly nothing stopping anybody else from doing so, as a normal editorial function. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations in the pronunciation of English ⟨th⟩[edit]

Alterations in the pronunciation of English ⟨th⟩ (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 looks like a big mess. Moreover it looks like it has content that is duplicate from other articles like th-fronting and th-stopping. It should be deleted. Voortle (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an undiscussed copy-paste combination of th-fronting, th-stopping, th-debuccalization, and th-alveolarization. The creator even attempted to redirect those articles to this one. I'm not sure of the necessity of combining them, especially without consensus. It's like the opposite of WP:SPINOFF. clpo13_(talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral They're basically just alterations of the "th" phonemes, just different dialects doing it different ways. And the article Th-alveolarization was pretty small. I was thinking merging them would be good, but if it is thought to be better to have them separate, let's keep them separate. Turns out merging them was tried before in 2005 by User:Jimp under Phonological history of English dental fricatives and someone undid the merge. Fish567 (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge if consensus is for it. clpo13_(talk) 21:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: keep them separate, make this (or a differently-named article) a disambiguation page? LjL (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per clpo13, this is just a copy paste of other articles. Should be speedy deleted for copyright violation. LjL's suggestion of a disambiguation page sounds good. Bgwhite (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then recreate as a disambiguation page. Voortle (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and then create a disambiguation page. 2602:306:3653:8920:50CA:E362:8C03:92E9 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also moving article to ILNumerics to help remove the appearance of advertising. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ILNumerics.Net[edit]

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

~~The article is unambiguous advertisement.~~ My request for speedy deletion was granted, although the article was restored when one contributor provided the following reasons: "The article exists for 10 years, addresses a technology used by an open source/commercial community of 25.000 users, won several awards". This reason itself sounds like advertisement to me. Also the "10 years" claim is inaccurate. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Topic does seem borderline notable, though: this article on MSDN discusses it and I'm able to verify the award. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyus: The MSDN article is about something with a similar name but not the same entity. Hint: The ILNumerics that MSDN talks about is free software. This one is non-free. See: http://ilnumerics.net/overview.html. I don't know if such a name collision can be legal, but a duck test fails here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: looks like there was originally a GPL'd edition; see this Channel 9 post. The article used to say something similar: "After 6 years of open source development, the project added a closed source, proprietary license in 2011, aiming business and academic developers at the same time." QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: It is the same software. You can find out easily by reading the content of the referenced article. ILNumerics were developed and published under open source license several years. This is (and will always be) available still - free of charge. See the references to nuget in the reworked version of the article. Thanks Numbers303 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you saying the current company stole the open-source version (and is now using Wikipedia as a free advertisement mechanism)? Or are you saying the opposite? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't know if I understand your question. Do you see evidence of an illegal act? Where do you see advertisement or other violations of WP guidelines in the reworked version of the article? Please be specific. Thanks Numbers303 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Looks like we have a total failure of mutual understanding here. Let me try again and see what I can make of this. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks Codename Lisa for bringing up the issue! The article indeed sounded a little advertising before. However, it would have been obvious by little research that a deletion would at least be controversal. Also, it is better to give the chance for improvement and discussion before considering speedy deletion. I appreciate your effort in helping to keep WP clean and in trying to be effective. Hoever, most parts of the article already contained useful information. I have just addressed the remaining issues and reworked the article. Numbers303 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reworking the article and adding several references to reliable and independent sources, these references have been deleted by User:Qwertyus with the reason: "popularity is unsubstantiated; sources are either self-published or affiliated, and don't actually establish popularity". This statement is not true. I will re-add the references^[1]^[2]^[3] in order to proof the visibility of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numbers303 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A list of alternative projects were added in order to make the topic even more neutral and objective. However, the whole section has been deleted for unclear reasons: "none of this is reliably sourced by third-party comparisons". Numbers303 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the best I found were some News and browsers links, certainly nothing better for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To the uninformed Delete voters, it was the first open source quality piece of engineering we took on and that you probably have not seen in performance and made available for free. The firm and project has supported a notable act of furthering good causes, in free grants of 2008 as well as GPL terms beforehand and thereafter. The arguments pointing to commercial nature are dubious at best as the piece of firmware, trackingware and trojanware most of the skeptics, and myself too, carry is commercial in nature too and described on WP. Did you argue to delete them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.132.167 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's many other libraries in this field available as open source. ILnumerics is a commercial product. They will have other ways of advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbran (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC) — Harbran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. 91.44.79.238 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Clearly, ILNumerics is scientifically relevant – there even exists a diploma thesis about it: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/255988828_ILNumerics_-_High_Performance_Computing_With_.NET_-_Enabling_.NET_as_efficient_platform_for_numerical_computations_and_visualizations It belongs to the MATLAB/R family of scientific computation software all present at Wikipedia helping students and researchers all over the world to solve their problems. Deletion would only make it harder for interested people to find and compare the few programs in this area. — 91.44.79.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I can’t see any advertising in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.172.128.106 (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — 212.172.128.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep as the nomination reason (advertising) has been removed.
- Disclaimer: I created this article in 2008. I also started the ILNumerics project and also participated in the founding of the related company in 2013. So I am biased, obviously.
- Commercial: The fact, that a commercial entity is now supporting the project is not a reason to bann a topic from WP. (I do understand if some are angry for not receiving the same support for the free version anymore, though. But I don’t assume it relates to the topic here ...)
- Advertising: if there was any in the article it has been completely removed. Btw: we did not edit the page for ages. We don’t see WP as marketing platform and will not change this perspective. Its less than 1% of our visitors coming from WP, btw.
- Notability: WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) From the guide: „Notable means ...[that the] product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product.“ This applies to all of: article^[4] on MSDN, another one^[5] by Scott Hanselman, ILNumerics was the cover story(WP:AUD)^[6] of the DOT.NET Magazin^[7] 02/08, several reviews^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12], and there has been this award (10k EUR, best of DACH area)^[13]. Download numbers of the GPL version mirrors as posted by Numbers303 are verifiable on their respective (reliable, unrelated) sites. Together with codeplex^[14] and sourceforge ^[15] they sum up to ~10k something. (Internal numbers are not publicly verifiable, hence not counted here.)
- Nomination proccess: Both, the speedy deletion request and the speedy deletion itself are questionable here. See the proposed procedure WP:ARTSPAM: „Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted.... Before trying to get an advertisement masquerading as an article deleted, please check the article's history to see if an acceptable revision exists there. If so, please revert to the latest acceptable version of the article.“ (There must be one from the past 7 years since its creation?) From WP:corp:
  - "Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV,
  - Erase remaining advertising content from the article,
  - Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains." But after removing any pot. promotional content^[16] clearly notable content remains. So a deletion is not justified. Phonologue (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We should consider renaming / relinking the article to: "ILNumerics" instead of "ILNumerics.Net".Phonologue (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have reverted the nom's withdrawal on the grounds that there are delete !votes. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The guideline governing withdrawal is WP:SNOW: There is not a snowball's chance in hell that this article may be deleted now. The least you could was to contact me and ask me to change my closure to a "NAC keep". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Holy Cross Crusaders Football Season (Dunmore, PA)[edit]

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

Exclusively primary-sourced article about the gameplay schedule of the football team at Holy Cross High School (Pennsylvania). Don't be fooled by the bluelink to Holy Cross Crusaders football in the infobox; that article leads to an unrelated team at the collegiate NCAA level, which happens to have the same name but is attached to an entirely different institution which isn't even located in the same state as this high school is. (There's actually been an ongoing reversion war over this article's erroneous inclusion in the NCAA team's categories — but it rightly doesn't belong in those, because it doesn't pertain to that team.) While we do accept articles like this for collegiate and professional sports, we do not have any established consensus to accept them for every high school that happens to have sports teams. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the misleading link, the real deal is at 2015 Holy Cross Crusaders football team. This is about something entirely different and unsourced. No indication that it passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huma Abedin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As it currently sits, this BLP is largely a positive spin on negative news re:Subject. This BLP's content,discussion and edit wars relate to only 4 things:1: Subject's tangential relation to her boss, Hillary Clinton 2: Subject's tangential relation to her husband Anthony Weiner 3: A letter written by 5 Republican Congressmen related to Subject's alleged familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which most editors here wish to dismiss and diminish as a smear and "conspiracy theory". 4: Abedin's emails made public as a result of Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Subject's emails on Clinton's computer which most editors here feel are non-notable. Rather than have a BLP which is skewed away from "anything negative" about the Subject, I think Wikipedia and our Readers are better served by not having a BLP on this Subject at all. On the other hand, other, perhaps most, Editors here, are not and have not been adding any content at all, just reverting content added by a few of us, thus the BLP is too brief and shallow to qualify for inclusion.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, SNOW Close, and possibly sanction this user. The subject of the article is notable by a mile, and the nominator knows it. AfD is not the place to address perceived article bias, or the conservative editors' complaints that additions of tangential material that may be negative towards Hillary Clinton is being reverted by those of us who are trying to keep this from becoming the "Conservapedia" version of what this article should be. User is WP:POINTY, disrupting Wikipedia to push their conservative POV. Discussion on the article's talk page hasn't gotten us far, hence this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ A review of the BLP will show nothing individually notable is within it. Just some references to her relationships with her boss and husband as well as references to what most editors feel to be conspiracy theories from politically biased sources. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentStruck Delete !=vote by the nominator, since the nomination amounts to a vote already. Edison (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a conservative editor...see my Oct. 21st edits re: Lynton Crosby and have never claimed anything about Hillary Clinton re: this BLP. The edit above, however, is a great example of the attack posture and "conservative cabal" paranoia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article has sufficient non-routine coverage in reliable sources, establishing notability. Your deletion "rationale" is about things that aren't in this article that you think should be (which are all being pumped up by conservative media, as it so happens). Your problems with this article have nothing to do with subject notability and AfD is a highly inappropriate step for you to have taken. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong, in my view. The wording is not "sufficient" it is "significant" and that is not the case with Abedin. Also, your lack of AGF is extreme and your continuing reference to conservatives has nothing to do with my editing and in fact I take offense to that allegation which you have made repeatedly about pushing a conservative POV, you are extremely disruptive and maybe just too accusatory to be editing or even discussing edits.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POINT. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I have no point to make, I am trying to help deal with a currently silly BLP about a non-notable person. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a textbook example of a notable figure. I can't see how this person doesn't meet WP:GNG. As for the argument that the BLP is "too brief", this article is much more in depth then a lot of other BLP on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not unbiased, and should be removed unless it can be unbiased since many people will be referencing it. As said above: a review of the BLP will show nothing individually notable is within it. It's largely a positive spin about many negative issues written by supporters of her and the campaign. hyperduc (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if your allegations were well founded, your main point would be no reason to delete the article: see WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, you reference an essay, which is not policy. Please see the top of the page you link to, i.e. "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It is indeed an essay, and an essay may only represent a minority viewpoint; thus it is imaginable that this part of this essay represents a minority viewpoint. However, I doubt that it does. Well, the list of policy reasons for deletion is here. It's a list, prefaced with: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following". So you may wish to add to the list "Articles whose content cannot be freed from bias". But then you'll have to argue convincingly that this is a reason for deletion and that the article cannot be freed from bias. I think you'll find this very difficult. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The reasons for deletion include #8:Notability, which I think applies and also 9. "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons" which I think also applies as our BLP policy provides that #Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: 1: Neutral point of view" . I feel the BLP does not adhere to the NPOV requirement, thus is in breach Of Wikipedia's policy on BLP, thus, as shown above, fits with #9 reason for deletion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word; possibly also notable in the real-world sense of the word. And an article here can be helpful: A look in Google Books shows an obsession with Abedin among fringe writers; a WP article can provide a sane version. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At Notability for People there is a set of qualifications, none of which Abedin meets; i.e."For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."

In addition, under "basic criteria", we have: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." which also fits with the coverage of this glorified secretary and wife of a scandalized husband. I have been asking on the talk page for one example of anything notable Abedin has ever done, and no one has come up with even one example. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well-sourced and clearly meets WP:GNG. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep per WP:GNG and a glance at the refs. Articles are not deleted because negative coatracking is removed, however, editors can be sanctioned for pointy behavior regarding a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The questions of notability and biased editing aside for the moment --- perhaps a principal reason for not deleting this entry would be consideration of the interests of non-editor Wikipedia readers and users.
Certainly, as the 2016 election campaign proceeds, the negative attack ad efforts of the opposing sides will crank up, especially as we move into the general election cycle. As pertains to the subject of this bio., and given the possibility that her boss may likely be the nominee --- all of the various allegations regarding Abedin will predictably resurface in (at least the conservative) media:

her dual employment status while at the State Dept.;
her State Dept. maternity leave situation;
her alleged excessive travel cost reimbursements;
her use of the Clinton's non-government, private email server;
the whole matter of her husband's sexting scandals;
allegations suggesting a lesbian-lover relationship with Clinton;
her childhood and youth growing up in Saudi Arabia;
allegations of her family's ties with the Muslim Brotherhood;

etc., etc.

Any renewed media coverage of such topics will undoubtedly result in Wikipedia readers searching on her name. Consequently, it would seem advisable that consideration be given, during this discussion on proposed deletion, to factoring in the question of how and where ' Huma Abedin ' searches would then be redirected, if this article were in fact to be deleted. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inappropriate for this list of unsourced allegations to appear in an AfD discussion. Surely it's a violation of WP:BLP? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've been discussing much of this on the article talk page. That's where this belongs, not an AfD discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the first response. Abedin is internationally notable in a heartbeat, and it isn't out of ignorance of the sources that this got nominated. This is a WP:POINT violation fair and square. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that virtually all of Clinton's other staff members, none of whom are particularly notable other than by virtue their association with the Clintons, also have articles (John Podesta; Robby Mook; Joel Benenson; Jim Margolis; Jennifer Palmieri; Stephanie Hannon; Amanda Renteria; Marc Elias; Nick Merrill; etc.) so that fact may have a bearing on this discussion. If this article were to be deleted, then similar consideration should be given to those articles, vis-à-vis AfD. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Each and every article should be considered on its own merits (or lack thereof). That consideration is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Read again, User:Muboshgu, and you will note that I am not, in fact, making an 'argument' for their deletion, and of course every article should be considered on its own merits --- I was merely noting the point I made as possibly of interest to editors vis-à-vis this discussion, for whatever it's worth. Really, none of the subjects of the other articles are as notable as Abedin, by Wiki standards, with the possible exception of Podesta(?) and Palmieri(?) As for myself, I would support that we Keep the Adedin article. --- Professor JR (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize for misinterpreting your comment Professor JR. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have looked through the sources that are currently in the article. There are multiple sources that provide significant coverage of her that meets the intent of the general notability guideline. I do not see any reason to delete this article, it might need work to clean it up but deletion is not the solution. -- GB fan 12:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Independently well known individual with significant mainstream media coverage. Satisfies WP:GNG with ease. Not even sure why this keeps being nominated. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean aside from her status as Hillary's right-hand making her a lightning rod? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both the nomination and the other delete !vote are basing their rationale on the article being "largely a positive spin" - but, if that were the case, that would be an editing issue, not a deletion issue. As such, no reasons for deletion have been provided by anyone. I also cannot help by observe that it's odd that the nomination includes, in the same paragraph, both a claim that the subject of the article is not notable and a complaint that other editors keep removing content that they are adding to the article. Why would one keep trying to add content to an article about someone they personally don't think is notable? Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair comment, but hard to explain.Initially I thought she was notable because of all the press coverage of Michelle Bachmann et.al's rather worrisome accusations that somehow Abedin had gotten into a sensitive government position without being properly vetted. And then the recently made public (by court order) Abedin email wherein she says that Clinton is "often confused" I also think is notable for several reasons. However, since the first issue is being presented in the BLP as a "conspiracy theory"..which is weirdly strawmanish, imo...and the second issue has not been allowed into the BLP at all, we are left with content which I feel makes the BLP non-notable and in breach of our BLP NPOV policy. These 2 results, non-notability and Breach of BLP-NPOV policy are each reasons for deletion; i.e. reasons number 8 and 9. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that just seems ridiculous to me. While it is true that Abedin is mostly notable through her associations with others, there are many articles in the mainstream media covering the woman herself, her background and her career. If we can have articles on barely notable chiefs of staff like Barry Steven Jackson, we can certainly have one on the internationally known Huma Abedin. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK that addresses the notability reason for deletion but what about reason number 9, i.e. Breach of BLP-NPOV policy? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about it, indeed? Here is the policy. How is it being breached, or in clear risk of being breached, so egregiously and with such determination that rational discussion, and any of a number of administrative possibilities (up to full protection), are not or will not be adequate, so that the article is better deleted? (And would you like salt with that?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

salt looks interesting. I did not know about that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most recent Reliable Sourced content which is not being allowed into the BLP. Professor J.R. and I both tried to add it in a small way yet it was immediately removed. This is just one of many examples of the BLP not being allowed to be NPOV. This is the way it seems to me. Actually, I read the entire BLP last night and it has improved dramatically since I started to edit it :) just kiding...but really, should not this new email content about Clinton being "often confused" in the view of Abedin bein the BLP since its being so widely reported by RSs? Maybe I'm Wrong about this? It looks like I will just have to accept the current editing condition of thus BLP. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we report everything based on being in sources, this would be Kardashianopedia. Policies exist to keep stuff like this from becoming a POV-farm, and AfD is not the place to be hashing this out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is not the place to discuss a content dispute. The article talk page is the appropriate place. That said, most of the sources talking about the "confused" email are from the right wing media echo chamber. The story bounced around there for about 24 hours then vanished. Per WP:WEIGHT, it does not belong in the Huma Abedin article as it is not a significant event in that person's biography. Or in Hillary Clinton's, for that matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD began and has continued as a content dispute, which is why I asked for it to be SNOW closed in the first comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I couldn't agree more. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill, The Daily Mail, etc. are not right wing echos. Your arguments about content dispute is specious because our policy includes a breach of NPOV in a BLP as 1 of the justifications for deletion, and NPOV is all about content or the lack thereof. Btw, if you are not interested in this discussion or it is a non valid nomination, why do you try so hard to influence it? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill is generally neutral, but The Daily Mail is a pretty awful right-wing rag. But like I said, this is not the place for a content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And consensus is against you on adding these things, so there is no "breach" of NPOV on this article. Moving on. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed equation , Just because consensus is against myself, Professor J.R. and D.Creish in some instances does not mean the BLP is NPOV. Consensus and NPOV are not synonymous. The beauty of Wikipedia is anyone can read the BLP and judge for themselves whether there is too much weight and puffery re: Subject's parents in the Early Years section, and too much weight to the media pile-on Bachmann in the Responses to allegations section. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And those two issues are sufficient reason to nominate an article for deletion? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And it makes perfect sense that Wikipedia should only contain good articles, especially BLPs. Here is how we get from the 2 issues to nomination for deletion: Step 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion says "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons" Step 2:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons says "material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to ... to Wikipedia's three core content policies: #1 Neutral point of view (NPOV)" Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "breach" here. There's a content dispute that should've been handled on the talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For all the reasons above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? All I see are reasons to use the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editor cannot nominate article per restrictions. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate controversy[edit]

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

Hashtag campaigns aren´t significant enought to warrant an article, the article itself is very subjective, repeats itself alot, uses emotionally loaded language, treats unverified and/or unverifieable claims as self-evident, uses biased sources using loaded language themselves, infringes WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SOAP, uses loaded quotes from random people who have no relevance to the subject or the sentence in any way, infringes the victimisation and accusation guideline of biographic articles, isn´t consistent if it describes the gamergate movement or the controversy of accusations to members of said movement and generally is written very subjectively. Due to the controversity and unverificablity of accusations to the movement and the constant misuse of the article as a political battleground by activists, there isn´t really any hope that this article would stay decent even if somebody managed to somehow get this mess of an article in control. Popcor11235 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Looked like a fairly obvious Speedy A7 to me... Peridon (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson William Cowan[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Claim of significance's credibility is unclear to me. Adam9007 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no sources, not a glimmer of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Malicbegovic[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Adam9007 (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Draghici[edit]

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

Non Notable LightiningShadow (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very famous Film Producer Alwayssmileguys (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination is completely too soon. What happened to the ideology of allowing an article on Wikipedia to grow? Is one now required to write a completed thesis type article? If this is the new construct of Wikipedia then Wikipedia needs to clearly state these new rules to everyone here! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. I can find nothing beyond some social media items and stuff from his web site, some quotes/passing mention. Jbh ^Talk 16:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more details which adds to the point that, he is a notable Producer. You might not be aware of American movie Producers. He is well known Producer. Alwayssmileguys (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person produced a film that won the Burbank Film Festival, so what?? There is absolutely no coverage about him and a half dozen mentions, in the context of discussing the film, that he was the producer does not come even close to passing WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. If he gets some significant coverage discussing him then there can be a Wikipedia article about him. Jbh ^Talk 11:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marginally notable at best, but does not get any mentions in the NYT which is a pretty good indicator of international notability. Collect (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added many relevant links. He is the VP of Soba Rehabilation center and is featured in Fox news. I have added the link. And May i Know how user Collect got the idea that one need to be featured in NYT to be notable. ? Here is link about SOBA which he cofounded - in NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/fashion/an-intervention-for-malibu.html?_r=0 Alwayssmileguys (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have one of the higher "keep" percentages at AfD. Mainly because I tend to be on the lookout in favour of those who are actually notable. (45% Keep, 44% Delete, 8% Merge or Redirect, 3% Userfy) An appearance on Fox News, if it were sufficient to prove notability, would double the size of Wikipedia <g>. And a ref to SOBA where Draghici is not named at all is not a sign of his notability at all. Again - I fight to Keep articles on notable persons, but when my search yields nada, I can not look other that at Delete. Collect (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does appear to pass WP:ARTIST based on the fact that WP:ARTIST states, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. But, hey, I'm still baffled by this bizarre, dogmatic, biased hated of artists that Wikipedia seems so incessant on embracing! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia seems set against artist bios, it's because they're so often promotional and/or autobiographical. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a directory of every person who's ever been involved in making a movie or had their art displayed in a gallery. That said, can you show how this passes WP:ARTIST? I'm not seeing much in the citations beyond mentions. clpo13_(talk) 21:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is oddly strange, to me, that artists on Wikipedia have been given this money-grubbing persona when pretty much everywhere else they're known as starving artist! What Wikipedia doesn't appear to mind? Law firms[1], entrepreneurs[2], management consulting firms[3], etcetera. Yep, nothing promotional about those individuals. (Not to mention that they are the ones most likely to hire someone to write their Wikipedia page.) But, then, this is the site that lists more video games from 2006 (or 2007 or 2008 or 2009) than contemporary artists! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25 citations and all that can be said is he produced some movies and one won an award (14 citations for that)??!!?? No, based on the material provided, this person is not "regarded as an important figure...". If he were there would be references talking about him and saying why/how he is important/influential. Since there are not, and we have enough references mentioning his name which would discuss him in greater depth if he were important or influential, we can safely say he is not. Q.E.D. Jbh ^Talk 21:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I went through the sources and found lots of biographical ephemera, but little substance. They consist largely of cruft (directory entries, photographs and the like) or passing mentions of varying credibility (from blogs to local news reports). One thing is sure: the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" demanded by WP:BASIC isn't there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using the word cruft is a huge insult to the creator of this article and should never be used within the context of any AfD! Also, the only sure thing about Wikipedia, is it is unsure of absolutely everything!!! WP:IAR --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough to support the bio. Usterday (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most significant accomplishment, the Burbank award is not as significant as it looks. There were 6 different films that received a Best Feature award at that festival that year. And there's no consensus that an award there is suignifiicant for notability at all-most films that have won prizes there do not have articles--including this film. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply hardly much for more of an article and is best restarted when better is available so feel welcome to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I considered userfying, per the author's final request to be allowed to improve the article. But considering their conflict of interest, their apparent lack of understanding of what constitutes acceptable coverage, and their promise earlier in this discussion that they would not edit the article any more, I am not going to userfy it even if requested. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Side Application[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable term with all of 32 unique Google hits, mostly not this particular usage of the term, or this page or this page reflected in the Speedy Deletion Wikia. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the third-party coverage the author knew of were two segments on Israeli TV, one of them this (episode of 5 May 2015, time 19:38, in Hebrew; to me the archive seems to go back only to August, but I don't speak Hebrew). That's not the significant coverage we need to establish notability. "Patent pending" indicates it's too soon for a Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Huon personal contact details for verifications. Tomorrow I will ask students that are using CSA to write testimonies on this page. --Yoram Bucks (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonials as to the usefulness of CSA would be inappropriate; inclusion in Wikipedia is not based upon the quality of the item being discussed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, What I should do? --Yoram Bucks (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. The discussion here is apt to hinge on whether CSA is notable technology; our basic guideline to notability should let you know basically what "notability" means in a Wikipedia context. Arguments to keep the article are likely to be more successful if they address the concerns there and, to the extent possibly, are stated in terms of Wikipedia policy. Meanwhile, if you have a personal connection to the technology (if you are, say, an inventor of it or someone who stands to profit from its success, or are directly related to such a person), reviewing our guide on appropriate dealings with conflicts of interest on Wikipedia would also be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks, I am the inventor of CSA. I will read the articles very carefully and response. --Yoram Bucks (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the articles. I don't think CSA has a problem of notability; I just need a fair change to present the evidences. I recommend it will be verified by Israeli related editor that knows the organizations here.

Regarding the Conflict of interest (COI) I admit I didn't think about it but after reading I perfectly understand and agree with the issue. I suggest that I will not edit the article any more, I will ask someone from Bar-Ilan university to take control without payment, and I also promise to contribute from of my knowledge soon and write new articles without COI. --Yoram Bucks (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any significant coverage of this technology either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about that; I also had difficulties finding the Item. Chanel 10 says that they have a problem with their archive and it will take at least two days before old programs can be retrieved again.

Can I email you personal contact details of people from Bar-Ilan University and other organizations that are heavily using CSA for development? They gave me their permission and are willing to testify. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better yet but feel free to restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you appoint an Israeli related editor for verifying CSA notability? (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I visited the campus in Bar-Ilan talked with a tutor and students, CSA is the most popular tool their for software development. (Kutiteli (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

That would be personal testimonials as to the quality of the tech, which (as said before) really do not count toward Wikipedia notability guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a testimony and it has nothing to do with quality. The writer is a retired IBM employee. He has no interest besides the willing to help. He didn’t know CSA before. He voluntarily agreed to be an editor here and verify CSA notability. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, and he is reporting the personal testimonies of the students. This is not media coverage, this is not sign of widespread influence, and it's not verifiable. Whoever closes this discussion is going to be looking not at the count of keep-vs-delete votes, but at how the arguments fit Wikipedia guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the only place where CSA got reliable third party recognition and it is verifiable - just appoint any other Israeli related editor. CSA has much more notability then only media coverage that can be bought through PR. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

New Update – verifiable third party recognition: after acknowledging CSA contribution to Android community Google has agreed to give a sponsorship and to host a professional event about CSA on its TLV Campus. The event is listed in their web site at https://www.campus.co/tel-aviv/en/events on 11/30 12:00. The luxurious place together with a package of other beneficial tools is given by Google free of charge. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Yoram Bucks What the article actually seriously needs is in-depth third-party sources overall such as news and magazine which solidly suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but don't you think that Google, Bar-Ilan University and others did a real in-depth check before relying on that tech. For me it is better proof then a media article that can be bought through PR Company. The different is that journalists don't leave with the consequences. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom --ℕ ℱ 19:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an understandable argument? (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

"Per nom" = "Due to the reasons explained in the nomination", i.e.,this user is agreeing with my initial entry into the discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a voting which really do not count, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

~~Keep.~~ After serious verification there is no doubt in my mind, CSA is notable. I am gathering the facts now and will come soon with the History section. (Kutiteli (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC))— Kutiteli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep CSA is popular among participants at Google Campus-TLV for its capabilities and the strong integration with Android. (Martamo22 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC))— Martamo22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And that addresses Wikipedia's general notability guidelines how? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage – two hours event syllabus. And formal site at: http://documentation.tripleit.com/, Reliable and Independent sources: Google (Martamo22 (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

A two-hour talk on one location that is supposedly happening today is not significant, and as I presume that one of the developers of it will be speaking, not independent. A website for the company selling "CSA Studio", not independent. Google is not cited as actually saying anything about this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the words "supposedly" and "presume" you can argue against or in favor of anything (Yoram Bucks (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not going to make believe that everything that is scheduled to happen happens, nor pretend that a listing for the presentation that contains a link to the corporate website is independent of the corporation should be presumed to be independent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are: The event held today with more then hundred people in the audience. The lecturer was an independent former Bar-Ilan student; it is collaboration with Google that includes also implementing the tech in Android.

Delete: There is nothing which I can find which is reliable enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. All the keep votes, which seem to be canvassed votes, have all been i like it votes and have done nothing to address the actual issues of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SOFTWARE. Before you respond to this or vote you should look through the links in my statement and ensure you understand them before you try to convince me I'm wrong.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wasn't aware about "WikiProject Softeare", after reading I'm willing to take the challenge and to edit the article according the conventions. (Yoram Bucks (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Sultans Of Excess[edit]

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

No evidence of significance; claim is barely significant enough to avoid speedy deletion. PROD tag was removed without comment or improvement by a single-edit IP. —Swpb^talk 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any independent secondary sources at all. JMWt (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply found nothing better, not even generally notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm prepared to argue that any established New Orleans Krewe is notable, but not for similar less- well-known festivities elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Necto (nightclub)[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this, this and this which are not convincingly better to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. This should be salvageable as a historical rock concert venue (Chances Are/Second Chances/The Nectarine Ballroom). Probably too detailed on modern nightclub though. Rmhermen (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can't tell whether it's notable or not, but it's an awful article. Has suffered from COI/SPA issues since the beginning, is like a poor man's press release and extremely unencyclopaedic and non-neutral in tone. If it does survive, it should be nuked and rebuilt from scratch. Rayman60 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's so much easier deleting an article than rewrite one! (FYI - the deletionist brigade has arrived so this one is going, going, gone... to Deletionpedia!) --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure if this will indeed happen but a third relist would be beneficial. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up nothing but trivial mentions. It exists, it has some popularity, but is it notable? Not according to searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable: Local club referenced solely with mentions & unreliable sources. Promotional, to the extent of being a misuse of WP as a webhost. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC) �[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Alberto Rodríguez[edit]

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

Person does not appear notable. Unable to verify sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigali1 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete as I am an author who is personally contracted to write a book detailing the life and history of Jorge Alberto Rodriguez. I know him personally and his story is very much real. He was arrested by U.S. Customs on 06 July 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. He went to trial in the U.S. Federal Court in Tallahassee on 18 October 1990 and was found guilty on 21 October 1990. What more references are needed to verify his name and existence? Elizabethcastro talk 09:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of references that can actually be verified. None of the references provided are verifiable. Does claiming to know him personally violate wikipedia's policy of a conflict of interest?, Kigali1 talk 13:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elizabethcastro: see WP:Identifying reliable sources. – Fayenatic London 19:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- If true, the subject must have been notorious. The Cali cartel certainly were, though the identify of is members was less well-known. It ought not to be difficult to find reliable sources from newspaper reports of his arrest and trial. When the book is published, no doubt it also can be cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably notable . The refs seem sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timuçin Şahin[edit]

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

Non notable with only 2 sources, claimingly shows notability. D'SuperHero (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, for now. D'SuperHero (talk) is probably right, the article indeed lacks enough references. But s/he is not only ignoring WP:BITE, but also has repeatedly inserted speedy deletion tags, even after they were contested by other respectable Wikipedians, as you can see here: [4] and here [5]. Hastily nominating this article for an AfD, when no discussion even started in the talk page, is another concern. ----MarkYabloko 11:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, and now also well referenced. If nominator spent half the energy on improving articles that they spend on drive-by tagging, this AFD would not have been necessary. Norvoid (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and I would've been bold to close this as such but I'll have it open in case anyone else wants to comment, seems notable and acceptable for now with some basic coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Khalid[edit]

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

Too short and fails WP:N. Musa Talk 11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG / WP:ENT and none of the sources are WP:RS compliant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable biography Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG, and related show he's famous for was recently deleted via WP:PROD.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, it is obvious to every reasonable person that the article subject is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muawiya II[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Muawiya II

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

This page does not qualify General notability guideline and Inclusion criteria, Most of the online sources belongs to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Yazid ibn Muawiyah but Muawiya ibn Yazid does not appears to be Notable. SpyButeo (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SpyButeo (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SpyButeo (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpyButeo (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SpyButeo (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject was an Ummayyad caliph. GBooks shows that sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GBooks does not contain any source about Muawiya II. SpyButeo (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean GBooks does not contain a biography of Muawiya II, you appear to be correct. If you mean GBooks contains no sources that mention Muawiya II, then following the link at the top of the AfD discussion will show you are incorrect. Edward321 (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Put in some more effort next time when searching for an Arabic name, especially since we're dealing with a head of state here. There are different renderings possible, such as "Mu'awiyah ibn Yazid" or "Muʿāwiya II". The latter has its own entry in the Encyclopedia of Islam. I've added the source to the article, so now it's at least not totally unreferenced. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Clear consensus to not keep as a standalone article. Merge seems the most reasonable alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Benkner[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

She was the oldest until it was proven she was not the oldest. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOPAGE Suggest redirecting this to whatever list she is on and putting any salvageable info there below the list. Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Led an ordinary life, and received a bit of incorrect publicity calling her the oldest then-living person, when she wasn't. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. Edison (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I think oldest German person ever and oldest living American is very notable. She was thought to be world's oldest person is itself have notability. revocation of the record will not be a loss of notability. longest-lived person in the United States or World is usually have an article.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

How? According to one editor writing 5 books, one on the NYT Best Sellers List for 5 weeks, is not enough to pass GNG.[6] Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is an extraordinarily poor argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge basic details to appropriate list. EEng (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOPAGE, virtually nothing in article that could be considered encyclopedic, once the OR, SYNTH and TRIVIA are removed. Possible merge, but how many minibios is too many? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. Coverage in sources suggests she passes WP:GNG, and enough for at least a mini-biography. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really? the oldest person ever who was born in Germany isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 11 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep and Expand The article is well-sourced and concerns a woman is the oldest known person to have ever been born in present day Germany. Article should be expanded, not deleted. 930310 (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep The strong claim of notability is backed by the required reliable and verifiable sources needed to create an appropriately significant encyclopedic article about the subject that meets and exceeds the WP:BIO standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Apart from the Guiness book of records, 4 of the remaining 5 sources do cover her in significant detail. The Berliner Zeitung source only has her as a passing mention at the bottom of the article. Despite the sources, her life was so uneventful and non notable that beyond the current Start class it is, there is little that could be done to expand it. Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charlotte Benkner is the oldest german person ever.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Merge/Redirect I think much of the discussion here is off the mark. Notability has been demonstrated, but that is not enough for a standalone page. Per NOPAGE and PERMASTUB, this topic is far better served by merging this article into the relevant list; there will never be enough material to justify an entire page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:Pages needing translation into English (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronilački klub Bosna[edit]

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

Created in other lang. rather than in project language. Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 09:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The treatment of articles not in English is explained at WP:Pages needing translation into English. This nomination is premature by two weeks, after which the article, if not already translated or deleted for some other reason, will almost certainly be PRODded. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metrostar Rattler[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP; No valid source for the supposed released arcade games and only source for the unreleased game is a post on a forum. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has tried to delete this notice. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with corollary: I will note here that I engaged in reverting User:Natsume96 who repeatedly tried to remove the Articles for Deletion notice from above article, as stated by einstein95. I stress that this was not a content-based disagreement, so I feel that it doesn't impact my impartiality, but feel free to disregard my opinion if it's felt to be a conflict of interest.

Searching Google for "metrostar rattler" gives vanishingly few results which at a cursory glance all appear to be mirroring Wikipedia content. There appear to be no reliable sources for the existence of this platform. Recommend deletion on this basis. Vague | Rant 09:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources at all found in a custom VG/RS Google Search, therefore, this fails WP:GNG. --TL22 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article moved to Draft:Reich Society; if deletion is still desired please nominate at WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reich Society[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP; Only sources cited are primary from its own website. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael J: Believe it or not, that was not our own website. That was written by a class at the request of Lambda Ypsilon. Also, they have done the same for my current website. Keep in mind we just started out two weeks, I would hope that we could get more sources after we get more attention. JLanzer (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per the above, seems to be textbook WP:TOOSOON. Userify until "more attention" is eventually gotten. JMWt (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There has been no discussion for the past two weeks, so relisting again will not likely result in anything substantial. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agape International Missions[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines given in WP:ORG. Sources are either primary, self-published, or trivial mentions. Kelly ^hi! 14:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NORG. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Jbh ^Talk 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A mass series of WP:POINTy nominations targeting User:Neelix-created articles, as stated as User_talk:Kelly#Neelix. Opposing on procedural grounds alone. This is apparently retribution over an issue now at this ANI thread as well as Neelix's editing around Tara Teng -- neither of which are related to the charitable organizations he is now taking to Afd. Per WP:BOOMERANG, it is Kelly's disruptive editing that is now a problem, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly evaluate each article on its merits. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would save me and other editors a great deal of time if articles had been nominated on that basis. Now, in this case, I don't see how it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, based on Gnews results. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing inadequate BMK (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP. The organization has received coverage here, here, here, here, as well as a mention in the CNN here. That's several examples of major coverage (in roughly descending of significance) both in the West and Asia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, the nominator has also brought Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Brewster to Afd. There's no reason to have two articles on such closely related topics, at any rate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor, minor coverage in an inflated article. Does not pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there's a few passing mentions of this org on Google News, and the occasional puff piece. I feel that this should be nuked, then any worthwhile content added to the Prostitution in Cambodia article, that includes important details like the Human Rights Watch report noting that prostitutes get raped by the police - see the Vice report the high cost of cheap clothes that mentions that some prostitutes pulled out of brothels then get exploited by the garment industry (8+ hour shifts) then go back to the brothels - all while U.S. evangelicals publish how great they are. Better balance can be achieved in the Prostitution in Cambodia article. -- Callinus (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issue is whether it passes WP:GNG. Moreover, what Callinus calls a puff piece other readers might describe as a feature article, or a reported story. More to the point, the coverage that comes to the top on simple news search, here: [7] is persuasive that this organization has the sourcing to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TROUT to Nom for asserting that that: "Sources are either primary, self-published, or trivial mentions." These are multiple reported stories by major media outlets.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's taking a very creative approach to the sources. They might be in major media outlets, but they're such trivial mentions - one of them is literally just mentioning that a dude they quoted works there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are either trivial and only mentioned in passing, local or from affiliated organisations. This needs to go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife made me think twice about my first search. I am capable of errors of judgment in a first pass at assessing notability. I punched Agape International Missions + Brewster into a Proquest News Archives search and found, along with articles that mention the couple only briefly, long stories about Agape, the Brewsters, and their work in real daily newspapers (Vancouver Sun, The Sacramento Bee). Also articles that focus on fundraising events for the center. I put some sources on the page, rephrasing the article in a couple of places according to what I found in reliable newspapers. I'm not claiming that it's a great article. Only that coverage supports WP:GNG notability. I recommend that editors attempting to evaluate this organization, run a news archive search. This article in KEEPE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the Don Brewster article has sources about this mission not presently on this page. I have suggested merging Don Brewster into this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant news coverage: many dozen references to this organization in Google news. And they mention this organization in a significant way, as one of important organizations working in this direction (e.g.here). My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with info merged in from the Don Brewster articles and sources now found on the talk page. Can be turned into a good little article. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NASHI[edit]

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

Local charitable organization that fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of series of flawed Canadian charity group nominations from this editor. In a number of Afds, I see the recurring meme that these are "local" organizations. In what sense is NASHI local? It's based in Saskatchewan, Canada -- all things must be based somewhere -- to helps girls and oppose human trafficking in Ukraine. Is it "local" because it's not American -- is that the intended perjorative, here? As for WP:ORG the references on the article as well as a few others one can find view Gnews indicates to me that it's sufficiently notable. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "local" because it's not American -- is that the intended perjorative, here? Do you have an actual argument or just more bad-faith assumptions masquerading as questions? --Calton | Talk 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*A mass series of WP:POINTy nominations targeting User:Neelix-created articles, as stated as User_talk:Kelly#Neelix. Opposing on procedural grounds alone. This is apparently retribution over an issue now at this ANI thread as well as Neelix's editing around Tara Teng -- neither of which are related to the charitable organizations he is now taking to Afd. Per WP:BOOMERANG, it is Kelly's disruptive editing that is now a problem, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only two of the nine sources load for me. If the rest are as flimsy as those, there's a legit problem with the notability of the article, regardless of who created it. Judging by the titles, several sources are routine event listings which aren't really great for this sort of thing. The local nature of the sources is also a bad sign. Searching for fresh sources, I found nothing. The name is also used by an unrelated Russian nationalist group of some kind, but that's fairly easy to filter out. Grayfell (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are a bit of a shambles here. That might require some cleanup before notability can be judged.-- Elmidae 08:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cached version of the CBC interview, you've got a big piece in the Star Phoenix, a Global News piece here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is frustrating, since it's a cached overview of a local radio clip. The second one is already in the article, and seems very flimsy. The third is useful, but it's an interview with a person affiliated with NASHI discussing human trafficking in Canada, not independent coverage of NASHI. Being active outside of Canada does make this technically an International org per WP:NGO, but the sources are so thin that more coverage of the actual scope would be helpful to get this away from being a technically/barely situation. A conference attended by 900 people is pretty small in scope. Grayfell (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the abstract on the CBC interview leaves no doubt that it meets the standard for a reliable source: "Sheila sat down with The Morning Edition's Madeline Kotzer to talk about the work Saskatoon group Nashi is doing in the Ukraine to fight the trafficking of children for sex." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source, but not for notability. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have it [sort of] backwards. Of course a published/broadcast interview conducted by and published/broadcast by a reliable source counts towards notability, so long as it's not conducted by and/or published/broadcast by the subject or someone with a direct connection to the subject. An interview of the subject by a reliable source is coverage of the subject. That's precisely what we need for notability. But apart from notability, because an article subject's own words are a primary source, interviews run into WP:RS problems for all the reasons at WP:PRIMARY. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local group. I'm sure they do good work and yes, their focus is another country. But ultimately, it's still a small local group. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international organization aiding victims of human trafficking in Ukraine. Article here in Ukrainian about the recovery house ("Maple Leaf Centre") they built in Lviv. There seems to be a lot of vaguaries going on - the Ukrainian article doesn't even mention they're from Canada (oddly referred to as "foreigners of Ukrainian origin" twice) and their own info on the house makes no mention of it being in Lviv or even Ukraine. However, the building in the photo is the same. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources linked above, in the article, and the following links look to satisfy WP:ORG: [paywalled] "Human Trafficking and Media Myths: Federal Funding, Communication Strategies, and Canadian Anti-Trafficking Programs" in Canadian Journal of Communication 39(3), Leader-Post, Archdiocese of Canada newsletter... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since when was a church newsletter sufficient to pass WP:GNG, as per the previous keep? The keep vote before points out that the sources cited don't even support each other. All of these references are hyperlocal, and that the author felt they needed to include a couple of sentences about a "45-minute event" they ran years ago strongly points to failing our notability criteria rather dismally. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: I see you took exactly 3 minutes since your previous AfD !vote to look at the article, conduct a thorough search for sources, evaluate other people's arguments, make a judgment about notability, and type up this wholesale dismissal. You say "since when was a church newsletter sufficient to pass WP:GNG, as per the previous keep?", as though I didn't also include a whole bunch of other sources and reference links mentioned elsewhere. Also, even dismissing that single source as "a church newsletter" sounds like you're talking about some small town church-in-a-barn. L'Osservatore Romano is a church newsletter, too. The Orthodox Church would not, of course, have the readership of the Vatican's publication, but it's not "hyperlocal" -- it's the national church publication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your newspaper source is about an unrelated author, with a very brief, passing mention that she donated to the organisation once. The church newsletter still doesn't meet the bar of a reliable source to establish notability. That you're having to grasp at such desperate straws makes the case for deletion in itself. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are defeating me. All the Saskatoonhomepage links are broken and apparently unrepairable, since that site has no search functionality. Of the other 5 refs, only 2 work, and I can't rustle up working links for the others. Currently would argue for Delete based on absence of verifiable sources, unless some enterprising editor can solve this quickly - if all these were accessible, Keep would seem justified.-- Elmidae 10:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Sources you cannot access are still valid sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS), and the current state of the article and the sources aren't relevant to AfDs based on notability. All that matters is that the sources exist somewhere, even if you can't access them. There's some necessary gray area and exceptions sometimes, but in general a citation to a broken URL is more or less the same as if the article creator used offline sources that are not verifiable online. As long as there's not a compelling reason to believe the sources don't exist (that they're made up), that is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources are unlikely to be made up, and thus one might treat them as 'offline' for practical purposes (a generous interpretation of WP:SOURCEACCESS). The problem is that there's no way to check whether these sources do establish notability, i.e. constitute substantial treatment by third parties etc., or are just passing mentions or in-house press statements. That doesn't normally come up with bona fide offline sources, but it's a distinct possibility with these. IMO if sources of such uncertain pedigree can't be accessed and assessed, they may as well be absent, and don't help in establishing notability.-- Elmidae 16:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss International countries[edit]

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

Superfluous fancruft. extensively edited by now blocked sockpuppeteers (but I admit, also by genuine users) The Banner talk 08:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 10:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think a coherent case could be made that all such competitions were not of any real significance, but given that WP includes the competition I cannot see that a comprehensive list of participants by country needs to be deleted. I do not think "fancruft" is a really appropriate tag -- it doesn't seem to mean anything beyond "I don't like it". Imaginatorium (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And conveniently you skip the part about sockpuppeteers... The Banner talk 09:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I don't really understand. I thought the question was about whether this page should be kept, rather than the identity or activities of previous editors. This isn't exactly my subject area, so I cannot make a precision assessment, but the article seems to be a reasonably organised list. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the kind of thing that belongs in the article about the event. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You'd expect this sort of crap on a fansite ... Not an encycloepdia with 6,822,196 articles and 47,378,980 users!, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "fancruft" about sums this up. This is a category, at best; not a list. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster Hunter books[edit]

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

Non-notable book series, Google search did not pull up any credible sources. Feel free to oppose deletion if I am incorrect. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 04:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search brings up nothing other than this Fanfiction.net account. The name of the author and the editor that created the article appear to be the same. From the best I can judge, this looks like it's an unpublished series based upon an original character someone created for fanfiction purposes. I note that the plot of this appears to be similar to the plot of Girl vs. Monster, for which the editor has also written fanfiction. I believe that this could probably be speedied as something that someone came up with WP:ONEDAY, mixed with a tinge of WP:A7 since I have to assume that this may just be more fanfiction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find this [8] (plus a few other similar pages on wikia.com), which is not useable for notability so Delete as it doesn't meet WP:GNG.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. There is the Wikia entry that Coolabahapple provided, but I still get the strong impression that this is a likely fan creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of several talk show guest lists we've seen at Afd lately. The consensus seems to be that these are all rather trivial and do not rise to the level of meeting WP:NLIST and I do think that is the case here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hope of making this a comprehensive list since the show was canceled when Tom Shillue moved into the host seat and very few actually catalog news shows outside of TVEyes and media-watch organizations. Stop trying to catalog daily talk show guests. Nate • (chatter) 16:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that he passes the notability criteria for academics. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olav sigurd kjesbu[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the guidelines of WP:ACADEMIC and does not appear to have been the non-trivial subject of multiple independent reliable published sources. The list of external links given only prove that he exists, and existence does not equal notability. KDS4444^Talk 12:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, self-promoting too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. An h-index of 37 meets WP:NACADEMICS#1 in most fields, and I do not think that marine biology is one of the exceptions (though it is probably more borderline than some). The article, though, could do with some fairly thorough improvement (and a title correction) - as it stands, it would not be much of a loss to Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC JMWt (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear pass of WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bishop, California. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 04:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Schat's Bakkerÿ[edit]

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

I can't quite see that this bakery is notable. There are secondary sources in the article, but the first two are short newspaper/blog articles, really just notices, and the third one is a brief mention in an article describing a road trip. The first source is pretty good but as I said it's short, and I just don't see that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. I have looked for more sources per WP:BEFORE but although there are many Google hits, all of them are business listings, review websites, and press releases - nothing independent at all. bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that this article might be just to promote the bakery itself. If anyone wanted to know about the bakery, they could just look at the few sources that do exist. The article is also poorly written and very hard to improve without copying sources directly. This needs to be notable and recognised as something important. wikipedia is not a list of businesses or an advertising platform. I know this may all sound A little to harsh and maybe I am biting too hard, but this should be deleted. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Attack Dog, it wasn't written to promote. I wrote it after I stopped there on a trip to LegoLand years ago, but I'll let others decide if it should stay or not. Cheers,--kelapstick^{(on the run)} 14:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it is badly or promotionally written - the only issue I have with it is the notability question. The article is more than six years old, and a lot has happened with notability criteria in that time. --bonadea contributions talk 16:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a legitimate tourist attraction in the town of Bishop, covered in The Wall Street Journal [9] as well as repeatedly in the Los Angeles Times [10]. These articles are brief but there are a bunch of them. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of those seem to be mentions of the bakery in articles about e.g. places to eat, or places to visit, or about the town of Bishop, rather than articles about the bakery itself. ("Seem to be" because some of it is behind paywalls so I have to go by what I can see.) Maybe there's enough such brief mentions so as to make up for the lack of in-depth articles? --bonadea contributions talk 16:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find this notion that "reviews" are somehow not evidence of notability pretty ridiculous. To me it is obvious that if a journalist has noted this as a place to visit, it is by definition notable by a secondary source. Yes, it is different if this is just written on a blog or imported from a press release, but if this is in a proper media publication with proper editing policies, that seems to me to be an independent secondary source. JMWt (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But if you have a text with very brief reviews (a couple of sentences) of ten or fifteen different places, it's a bit borderline in my opinion. --bonadea contributions talk 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as failing WP:COMPANY (regional/in-passing coverage) but I'd also suggest that the content should be merged to Wikivoyage article about the city, where it can be a valid POI, with its current description copied there. [11] is good enough that it would warrant a mention of the business place at the city's article, too. But I don't feel it's enough to support a stand alone notability.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bishop. Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH as mentioned above, but has enough coverage to merit a mention on the city page. --Tt(^talk/_contribs) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, I support a merge to Bishop, California. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I echo the comments above with that this is not obviously independently notable and while I only found some links at Books, News and browsers, it can be mentioned at the community's article if it is noticeably locally known and significant. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Salehi[edit]

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

This is a non-notable politician, whose only elected office is a local library board, the Buena Park Library District.

He is a perennial candidate, losing bids for Laguna Beach School Board in 2000, Irvine School Board in 2004, US Senate in 2010, Buena Park City Council in 2012 and 2014, and for United States Congress in 2014 (winning just 2.6% of the vote in a four-way race [12]).

The sources cited consist of a one-off interview on Fox News, the Buena Park Library District, a copy of a patent he holds, two private business web sites that don't mention him, his campaign web site and campaign YouTube, his business's web site, and generic listings of candidates. (Even his business's web site is linked simply to a private mailbox. OCNative (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he had come in second in the house race that alone would not make him notable. He came in a distant 4th. Library Board members are virtually never notable for being such. There might be one person somewhere who did enough on a library board to warrant a Wikipedia article, but Salehi is not that person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOT notable, period. Luigibob (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No, a board member of a library that serves a population of 80,000 is not notable. And on top of it all, the article is painfully promotional (e.g, " Al Salehi represents a new generation of liberally minded, fiscally conservative non-partisan leaders. Locally grounded but internationally connected—a capitalist with a social conscience—Al is challenging his party to live up to its ideals of transparency and respect for individual freedom."). Graham (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, what is "his party" that he is challenging if he is indeed "non-partisan" (which he mentions twice)? Graham (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "library board" nor "unsuccessful candidate for Congress" is a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia, and nothing else here is any stronger — and, as per the nominator, the sourcing here relies too strongly on primary sources and namechecks of his existence, and thus the article is not sourced well enough to claim WP:GNG. This reads very much like a campaign brochure rather than a real encyclopedia article, so I'd be very surprised if it wasn't created by his own campaign team. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's a trustee for a library and unsuccessful political candidate - subject is not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The article was speedily deleted per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enea Jorgji[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Egghead06 with the following rationale "It was until recently the case that referees were assumed to be notable if they had refereed at a fully pro level. The subject has refereed in the Europa League. I am therefore removing the Prod. Feel free to take to AFD". Well, as noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability, referees are not automatically encyclopedic, and I don't see any sources for this person passing GNG/BIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not even an article. --Mondiad (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't satisfy GNG. In addition Jorgji is not a fully pro referee. MorenaReka (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I thought referees who officiated in the Europa League were notable - they clearly are not.........--Egghead06 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the position of referee does not in itself confer notability, thus WP:GNG must be met. All sources found on a quick Google search are either WP:ROUTINE or are not reliable sources, therefore WP:GNG is failed. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene's Sausage Shop[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:TonyTheTiger with the following rationale "This article is the featured subject in many WP:RS. It should not be deleted without an WP:AFD consideration". Where are those RS? All I see is very local/niche news coverage (up to and including Facebook) failing NCOMPANY's audience requirement,. This entry could only be salvaged by copying it to Wikivoyage's article about Chicago, which is more lenient for listing local restaurants. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of two minds here: I think there is probably enough independent media coverage to meet notability, but probably not enough to write a page that contains any useful information beyond the fact that it exists and some people like it. For that, I think there would need to be an extended researched media article about the history, ownership etc of the store to reference, together (maybe) with information about turnover from publicly available records etc. It might then be a useful page to someone looking for additional encyclopedic information about the shop, but at the moment, I'm struggling to see any value in the page at all, so am leaning towards delete. JMWt (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: An article can be short and notable; the problem is that sources for companies should not be strictly local, and this is what I am seeing here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tending to agree that this seems to be of local interest, but is that really a sensible criteria? Obv if this was a shop in Poland, it is unlikely to be very interesting or notable, but at what point does a long-standing-and-unusual shop in a local area become notable enough? JMWt (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOMPANY suggests that for companies, the answer is once it generates coverage that's at least regional if not national. I tried to find an example from Category:Restaurants in Illinois and Category:Retail buildings in Illinois but almost all I see makes me want to start more AfDs, so perhaps I am not the best person to ask here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it should be kept, but there is sufficient source information that a discussion should be held. The above discussion documents that there are at least modest arguments to be made for its existence. Not sure if it should be kept for some of the other issues discussed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And I am not saying there is anything wrong with having this discussion :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam easily all found links but nothing for more obvious notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to show notability. References indicate only local interest which could be created for any restaurant almost anywhere.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HeyWire[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Cavarrone with "Notability is questionable, but probably AfD is the best venue for this". Well, here we are: can anyone find any reason to keep this? I don't see any. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam; note also the creator's declared COI: from User:Kemipa "Keith Paul is the Director of Marketing at "HeyWire." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, corporate spam with little to no encyclopedic value. Citobun (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do so love these deprodders who just love to subvert the process and waste people's time, having done not one lick of work to back up their actions. Certainly no evidence that this outfit meets WP:CORP has been proffered. Ravenswing 06:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Conrad[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable with its current version and the best links I found was only this, this and this. Notifying taggers Nomoskedasticity and Fylbecatulous and WikiDan61 fixed a ref error so I'm not sure if he'd want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable regional radio broadcaster. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, with WP:BLP concerns, without prejudice to recreation with better sourcing. There might be a case for WP:BIO. I'm seeing several news sources about him and he does host his own show on BBC. But the sources cited are all poor or primary, in-text citations lacking, and the prose mostly constitutes a resume-like list of positions. Unfortunately, almost all of the sources I'm seeing are about controversial comments, criticism, apologies, etc. such that it's clear that not only is the current article quite inadequate and, perhaps, undue, but that to write a good article would be tricky and more or less require starting over. It's sort of borderline, but I think WP:TNT is the best option here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just enough of a consensus to tip over the keep side. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ziyarat locations[edit]

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

A complete load of OR, SYNTH and POV. If I start a cleanup, we will be left with a small stub, not a list. Why did this pass the AFC anyway? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat what makes you think this article was ever submitted to AFC? The empty move log proves that it was created directly in mainspace and not through AFC. I'll thank you not to diss one of the hardest working groups of editors on WP without evidence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger (Dodger67) My apologies, I may have been viewing histories of two articles simultaneously and was mistaken. So , again, my apologies, I did not mean any disrespect. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no reliable sources which describe places as ziyarat locations? Siuenti (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti I think there are only 9-10 which are described as such, and even then the sources as contested as being RS. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tip. A reasonably often used alternative spelling is ziarat. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a ziyaret is just a Muslim holy site that people visit. There are probably tens of thousands of them, maybe hundreds of thousands, many of them unofficial or local in nature. There is no source that lists them all, or even those in a single country. A tree with the local tradition that someone holy was buried under it and which has some votive rags tied to it could count as a ziyaret. So any "list" will be unworkable if accurate, OR and probably POV if selective. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic as much so as the contents of Category:Pilgrimage churches and Category:Pilgrim Centres and its contents. The article needs work, of course, but its encyclopedic worthiness is obvious. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: List of Christian pilgrimage sites which is not nominated for deletion and covers essentially the same sort of material for different religion...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking that ziyarat is synonymous with a pilgrimage site, but that is not so. A ziyarat does not need any "notability"(lets use this word for the lack of a better) like a pilgrimage site does. For example a site is considered a pilgrimage site if something important happened there or someone important went/lived/died/is buried there. This is not the case with ziyarats. A simple tree outside a town in Pakistan/India/bangladesh/Africa will become a ziyarat site as soon as the first villager hangs a rag on it and says "Ooh loookey, this here tree is a good tree". So comparing the two is like comparing oranges with mangoes. Perhaps you can peruse Wikipedia:Other stuff exists in your spare time. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, any item can be in Christian pilgrimage sites, as they are. All you need is someone to yell "I saw Mary" and suddenly the floodgates of pilgrims and money show up. Your citation to "Other stuff exists" is similarly inapt. If the article needs to be purged of what you call non-notable rags on trees, in your spare time purge it - and if you are worried about "other stuff" purge all the lists of pilgrimage sites to remove redlinks, non-notable places, etc. unless you're only targeting one set of beliefs. The proof is in your actions/inactions. Carlossuarez46 (talk)

"...the article needs to be purged of what you call non-notable rags on trees". You have just confirmed my delete point. Such "purging" would be OR and not nPOV. A tree with rags on it can be a ziyaret. (NB., I'm using the ziyaret spelling because that is the variant I know). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46 "I saw Mary" has christian connotation so you are basically agreeing with me here. A person can say that they saw Mary and the site will become a holy site due to its relation with Islam. However the same is not true with these so called ziyarat sites. People don't have to say "Oh this site is connected to Islam or religion so it is holy". they can just arbitrarily choose a site and then say that it is holy. therefore we cannot keep a record of all of them. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When there are a lot of articles about List of ziyarat locations, why do you want to delete this article? (@FreeatlastChitchat:)--Seyyed(t-c) 05:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. The vast majority of locations listed in the article have no references and no supporting Wikipedia articles. The most important sites will have lots of articles/sources, but that will be as individual sites, not as a collective "List of ziyarats". Isn't there a requirement that to be included in a Wikipedia list article, there has to be either an individual suitable reference for the thing included or an associated Wikipedia article on it? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is similar article, List of Christian pilgrimage sites, that has not sufficient reliable sources. We must improve these lists and deleting is bad way.Saff V. (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly similar. It has the word "notable", "pilgrimage sites" is something specific and not a thing with as loose a term as ziyaret, and about 95% of places in that list have Wikipedia articles that support their inclusion in the list. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. There are similar AfDs going on, in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shia Muslims. My bottom line there is that these merely navigational lists indeed fail WP:GNG, but the extentsive use of such lists may require community-wide consensus (or at least clear guidelines) that said lists are undesirable. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ziyarat locations is not a usable navigational list since the vast majority of sites mentioned do not have Wikipedia articles, and many of the wikilinks that are in the list actually link to towns in which the ziyarats are located, or are about persons or organisations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List has been largely cleaned up now (maybe I should've also removed the link-less entries with additional but unsourced information). Apparently I'm not the first to do such a thing. This article used to be almost 70 kb until MezzoMezzo unleashed a deletion storm in August 2013 and left 9 kb worth of material. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long it is to linked valid referenced articles - the subject is valid, the list is valid, and however disparaging some of the comments in this afd might be, ziyarat or ziarah is a valid topic, and the list to valid articles is still good. It is clear that there have been massive additions, and massive deletions. It should be on the record, that where a valid ziarah/pilgrimage site exists, there is a well referenced article that identifies it as such, that there should be no impediment to having a list. The problem with this list is low level english eds think its a great place to add their local site, which has no linked article. Ziarah as a practice is something which excites the passions, and also fervour, and the life of this list seems to strangely reflect the two sides of pro and anti ziarah populations. JarrahTree 23:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, as there are no reliable sources indicating that these are indeed ziyarat locations. There are no references in the list, and several entries chosen at random do not mention (let alone with sources) any ziyarat status. The comparisons with Christian pilgrimage sites are beside the point, because lists of these need sources just as much as this list, and should be nominated for deletion if they don't have any. Sandstein 19:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or incubate: Considering the list looking quite notable, it needs to be drafted as there are insufficient reliable sources. Otherwise, it could be kept by carrying out a major cleanup plus citing reliable sources. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korean maritime border incidents[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article as it now stands duplicates material in List of border incidents involving North Korea, the Northern Limit Line, and the main articles for the various incidents described on the page. It has no reason to exist. Jack Upland (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I will proceed instead with a merge proposal.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Content from this article is mostly worth saving, but it is indeed a case of some redundant forking. I assume this is primarily a result of bad writing. WP:REDUNDANTFORK All of the articles are badly written and messy. The list is way too verbose for instance. However, I would Keep this article per Zorgon's and Xyl 54's arguments from the previous nomination. The NLL article is already pretty long. This should have been a merge proposal in my opinion. WP:ATD-M WP:MERGEINIT AfD is not for deleting merely bad articles. Ceosad (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason why I didn't propose a merge is that the content is already duplicated. Deletion seemed simpler.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamel Farhan Saleh[edit]

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

This autobiography, even if it makes a credible claim of significance and survives A7, does not make a case for notability. Also, it requires heavy copy-editing, so that if it is to be kept, it should be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs for passing WP:CREATIVE are present. Nor do I see any. Would be nice to hear from an Arabic speaker on the Arabic search? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I easily found no better sourcing. Notifying DGG who may want to comment with this familiar subject and also tagger Clpo13. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to guess a little on this one, but if these are the only published works the person is unlikely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Lay (director)[edit]

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

Obvious conflict of interest, and fails the WP:FILMMAKER policy. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 02:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously not much for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article is full of unreferenced grand claims. Possible autobio. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conductive wireless charging[edit]

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

Page does not depict a notable and unique technology. It is not about a variety of wireless power transfer, as the title might imply. It is about regular charging, but the wires instead terminate in the shape of a pad instead of a plug. Maybe a section on "plugless" chargers can be added to the article on battery chargers if the information is deemed noteworthy by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarkreth (talk • contribs)

Comment - Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wireless power. There are inductive and conductive wireless charges, but the former is far more popular, and the article we have for that, Inductive charging, is itself currently proposed for merger to wireless power. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure that Wireless power is a suitable target, given that conductive charging does not make use of any form of electromagnetic ("wireless") transmission of power. Instead, it is just a matter of design of a safe form of conductor pad which connects without a plug or socket - Plugless power or Plugless charging would be the subject. Since those targets don't exist, it may be best to leave the article where it is; or perhaps to rename it, but we don't need AfD for that. The article is cited, the topic does exist and the technical problem is not without interest, so the need to have it at AfD at all does seem rather doubtful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I'm not sure I follow. Both this article and wireless power about charging a device without wires between the [e.g. phone] and the [charging station/mechanism]. Why is "plugless" more accurate than "wireless"? I don't think anybody means there aren't wires involved somewhere -- just that the [phone] and [charger] don't have to be connected via wire. I don't think anybody disputes the topic exists -- it's just much less popular than inductive [wireless] charging and looks to be something that could be encompassed by the wireless power article. But if I'm misunderstanding something I would, of course, be content to change my !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, the term "wireless" used long ago to mean "radio", as opposed to wired (telephone/telegraph). Sorry if that is too dinosaur to be comprehensible. Since the charging pad makes actual electrical contact, the electrons flow the usual way from mains to device, without any transmission and reception of radio waves. The inductive devices, on the other hand, work at a (short) distance through air or plastic. Hope that is clear, the difference is in fact simple and sharp. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Conji[edit]

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

Most of the current sources used in this article really do not establish Anime Conji's notability.

ANN: Solve the Mystery of Danganronpa at Anime Conji - This is the only source that might make the convention notable from the current list.

After researching, here is what I could find towards Anime Conji's notability.

The San Diego Union-Tribune: Anime lovers only - Anime Conji celebrates Japanese animation and manga - Reads like a press release.
Cinefantastique Online: Anime Conji 2011: It’s back, and this time it’s inter- and intra-personal - Possibly establishes notability.
ANN - Anime Expo 2012 - The Future of Anime Expo panel - Briefly talks about Conji after the Anime Expo takeover.
Los Angeles Magazine: Get Your Con on This Weekend - Mentions convention, talks about events being held.

I am bringing this article to AFD, as I am not sure even with the additional sources, this is notable enough. I could not find any extensive TV or Newspaper coverage, or aside from Anime News Network any extensive anime industry coverage. Esw01407 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This convention features several notable guests every year. That alone could make this convention notable. FiendYT (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by that argument, guests will turn up if you pay their fare, room and perhaps other costs and will be looking to increase their exposure and market themselves at the cons expense. For example the first Hyper Japan had a generic voice acting idol group turn up but it was purely a business trip for them - they used the chance to do a photoshoot in London and and spread the word about their show. Guests alone won't make a con notable unless they attract the very cream of the crop, and even then it's a marketing exercise and question of funds rather than the importance of the con itself. The biggest cons will attract bigger guests but again, big show means big marketing exposure. The statement is also meaningless without a guest list and the guests mentioned in the articles linked are not big enough to make a difference. Additionally as the creator of the page and person claiming the guests are notable, you should be providing examples. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is by SPJA who produces Anime Expo. Here's an LA Weekly article: [13]. The Danganronpa event was also covered by Game Informer [14] Here's a Holtville newspaper article about how the event draws in about 3,000 people. [15] The greater question is at what size an anime convention in the US should be before it is considered notable, now that there are multiple ones in the country? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think size matters, notability is notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep With Angus's finding of additional sources, one of them is a passing mention but there is enough overall coverage for this one to just squeak by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request As the debate is not moving forward, I have gone ahead and rewrote the article with the sources available. I would like this AFD closed with the note of "no consensus". Esw01407 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Times[edit]

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

Fails notability (namely magazines). Their 14 edits over a few days 4 years ago were all on this article or related to this subject. Facebook and website haven't been updated in 4 years. Rayman60 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, also fails WP:NCOMPANY, and I don't see any better sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as not yet notable and even WP:GNG would be applicable here. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boka Star[edit]

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

This article was created by user who had similar content removed from M-87 Orkan page. He created this article for personal purposes and it contains false information. After creation he linked this article with M-87 Orkan page were same content was deleted after Talk. Loesorion (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

precisely what information is false, and how do you know that? DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information in content of this article is false and it is discussed on M-87 Orkan talk page. There is a police report about content of ship and court judgement(since 2014 Marko Balic pending second retrial with only customs charges no weapons proliferation charges). Not a single word about Orkan M-87 in any official document - see link to police report in Talk:M-87_Orkan page. Such information was never established except in newspapers(in same time as false WMD was established in Iraq) and ship final destination mentioned in papers - Iraq - was never established by police or court. Everything about Orkan M-87 and Iraq was is invented by yellow press witch is used for references in article. User who created this article new about discussion in Talk page Talk:M-87_Orkan for deletion of part of M-87 Orkan article about Boka Star because it was content that he added. When discussion started in 22 june 2013 to remove false content in article because he knew that it is false claim and is going to be erased, as I have seen now he created article Boka Star on 24 june 2013 and later on 23 may 2015 again added link to article in M-87 Orkan page. Article has nothing significant to exist in Wikipedia except if we are going to read about trials in court and one ship involved in it and if it is such a case millions of trials could be made as articles in Wikipedia without any significant emphasis. Loesorion (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I read the talk page: So this is kind of WP:POVFORK written from unreliable sources? The editor who wrote this article has made multiple problematic edits (such as blanking a page without an explanation and replacing it with a redirect - see the edit history of Commodity (Marxism)), so I find it quite hard to believe he wrote this in good faith. It is best to delete this page. Ceosad (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure if the ship has any notability outside of the event so I posted a pointer in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. - Location (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The ship existed. There are plenty of references to the fact that she was involved in arms running in 2002, operating as Star. If there are problems with the article such as misleading information, they can be addressed. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ship seems unremarkable, and the issue of arms smuggling should be covered directly in an appropriate article. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands, the article appears to be a POVFORK, being about the incident, not the ship. However, it should be possible to find enough about the ship to make a viable article on the ship, not just this incident. [16] suggests the ship is ex-Yugoslav navy - do we have a name for it then?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the article, giving a description of the ship, and I think that there is enough coverage now to Keep the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY. Ships get articles. Kudos to User:Nigel Ish for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now a good articleLyndaship (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources it appears the content is true and its smuggling history was covered well.--Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All military vessels are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of sudden on 22. November started activities to add more content to article, very oblivious approach by author and his colleges in order to keep it, but can all of you that added content explain what type of fuel SCUD is using? And such article that is directly misguiding readers is not worth to keep. Loesorion (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Loesorion: Please do not accuse editors acting on their own initiative of collaborating with the original creator of the article. One outcome of nominating an article for deletion is that it gets improved and kept, once it is known that the article is at risk of deletion. This seems to have happened here, regardless of the motives behind the creation of the article in the first place. This is not a personal battle between you and the creator of the article. If it gets kept it will be because the original concerns have been addressed. That doesn't mean the the original creator has "won" or that you have "lost". Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Kudos to those members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships who have built another encyclopedic article. - Location (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that author so there is nothing personal in trying to delete article that contains false information and there was a reason for deletion and a sudden change of article in day that should be deleted with nobody saying anything prior that and still is kept portion of article with false information's that was reason for deletion is something that made me feel awkward. Sorry if I offended anyone by mentioning something that sound like accusation but I just wrote that without explicitly thinking on anyone but on content that was still there. It was not my attention to accuse but if you find numerous time same wrong info and every attempt to delete it is not successful despite previous discussion about it is time to think about conspiracies - joking of course - I don't mind article to be improved but improving everything else and living reason for deletion is strange don't you think? Loesorion (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree to keep this article after serious edits and improvements of its content so this discussion should be closed Loesorion (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus that this subject meets WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Keleman[edit]

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

An insufficiently sourced biography of a living person. This subject does not appear to have had any significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The sources we have appear to be promotional or not independent (e.g. commercial organizations related to the subject). Salimfadhley (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still contains good amount of sources.--115ash^→(☏) 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to review the sources, could you tell me which of the sources you think best establishes the subject's notability? This person seems to be mentioned on a number of web-sites but I was unable to find a single one that would meet our guidelines for a Reliable Source. Perhaps I missed something. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with a more-than-passing knowledge of bioenergetics and body psychology I was interested in this one. The problem as the nominator points out is a lack of non-affiliated reliable sources. The article for bioenergetic analysis founder and former W. Reich disciple Alexander Lowen isn't terribly well-developed, either, but there's enough RS out there if one does a Gnews search (particularly for non-English coverage, for some reason). With Kelemen, you don't see the level of general-interest coverage but perhaps people could find evidence that he meets WP:NACADEMICS as someone influential in the body psychology field, I dunno. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contains promotional sources, but not enough coverage from reliable independant sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The most reliable sources are the NYTimes book reviews published in 1975. I have NYTimes subscription and was able to read the reviews. They do not discuss much about the subject's life, but uncritically discuss his fringe theories on metaphysics and longevity. The other sources cited in the article do not establish notability, thus it fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share some relevant extracts from the article? I think User:Northamerica1000 has a valid point that significant coverage in 1975 may still be sufficient for our notability standards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well that's enough. This is an academic (or pseudo, if you prefer) who's notable for his ideas, not "his life." Reliable sources don't have to be about "the subject's life," per WP:AUTHOR. If we have two bona fide NYT reviews and the SF Chronicle reviews, too, that's multiple and that's enough. We're not here to sit in judgement over whether the NYT reviews are "critical" enough, it is sufficient that that his works have been the subject of multiple reviews. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a better article can be made as I found some links at News and Highbeam but nothing surprisingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author. The booksare very widely held by an array of academci libraries 931 in one case; some are published by major publishers. For an academic,and I'll judge him as an academic, this meets WP:PROF because it shows the influence of his ideas. The article does need some rewriting, but it meets the usual standard. If there are reviews of the books, it meets WP:AUTHOR as well. It is not necessary for a writer or professor that the references discuss their personal life; they rather need to discuss the factors which make for notable, and in this case it's the books. I personally have a considerable degree of impatience with psychology work of this nature, and I regard it as a sign of incipient absurdity for anyone to derive a theory on the combined basis of Darwin and Einstein. But that shouldn't be a factor in judging the notability of the person for the purpose of a npov encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more or less per DGG. Reviews of multiple books in the NYTimes are ordinarily sufficient to demonstrate notability of their author. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR from reviews talked of above; also ebsco shows some book reviews by Library Journal[17], Kirkus also has a couple - [18], of Living Your Dying - "In spite of some puerile reductions, this is a surprisingly provocative view of the possibilities that the new death consciousness offer us. .. It is unfortunate that Keleman mars this fascinating thesis with a simplistic section on ""self-dialogue"" -- getting in touch with our wish to die and our lifestyles; personal growth is much more complex. But he wisely and pointedly opens doors, and his book may prove an impetus to more complete studies and therapies.", and [19], of Your Body is Alive! - "Keleman, whose Living Your Dying (1974) attracted a good deal of praise, is a bioenergetic therapist whose commendable motives cannot be doubted, but oh, my, how he writes. .. Still, these insights degenerate with remarkable swiftness into jargon, and Keleman's heavy reliance on metaphor tends to be annoying rather than illuminating. Aren't there any bioenergeticists who can write English?" Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:AUTHOR criteria #3, because the subject's works have received multiple independent reviews from reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Agape International Missions. The consensus is that Brewster doesn't have notability outside of the organization, and information on him should be merged into Agape International Missions before redirecting his article to the organization article. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Brewster[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines per WP:BIO. References are primary or self-published sources, or don't mention him at all, except for the Los Angeles Times ref which only names him tangentially. Kelly ^hi! 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agape International Missions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--really a puff piece. Good man, no doubt, but not notable per GNG. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there's space for a sentence or two about him near the coverage of Somaly Mam in the article Prostitution in Cambodia. -- Callinus (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Here's a profile in a major daily, South China Morning Post (remember that # of Anglophones in Hong Kong outnumbers the populations of several American states) [20]. Beyond full profiles, coverage of Brewster in major media is often substantive, CNN 2013 : [21]; CNN] 2011: [22]; ABC News : [23]. I'm all about sources, and this aid worker has the sourcing to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge into Agape International Missions. There is notability here, but as Brewster's claim to notability stems entirely form his mission to rescue and rehabilitate forced sex workers, it makes sense to combine these two articles into a single article. Another reason to do this, is that many sources describe his wife, Bridget, as co-founder and equal partner in the mission, an aspect that is lost in having an article only on him. Redirect and merge would make 1 pretty good article out of 2 stubs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, you appear to have recorded two !votes here. I've provisionally struck the second of these, but please keep/strike whichever is more appropriate. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I also support a merge with this becoming a redirect. I copied the few sentences here over to the Agape article and put the sources E.M.Gregory found on it's talk page. Now just needs a cleanup and put in the redirect when this closes. Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I continue to oppose deletion, and continue to think that a redirect and merge to Agape makes sense. Thanks to User:Legacypac for adding those sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agape International Missions. His notability is tied to the organization and there is no significant coverage of him as a person or independent of the organization. The little there is on him already exists in almost the same form in Agape International Missions. Jbh ^Talk 15:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that it passes notability criteria for an organization, although it might have a promotional issue which should be corrected. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not for Sale (organization)[edit]

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

No sourcing to establish notability per WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 13:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a relatively high profile organization. I.e. [24] 169.231.4.229 (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also [25]. Admittedly a little harder than usual to google for because "not for sale" is a common phrase (even a common slogan among similar organizations/campaigns dealing with human trafficking). 169.231.4.229 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:BEFORE search, a requirement of AFD, would have saved us all a lot of time here. This is among a dozen other AFDs that have been loosely nominated for deletion based upon the article's need for cleanup rather than its actual notability merits both on Wikipedia and off. 'Not For Sale' appears in numerous books such as this, newspaper articles like this and other publications. I won't list them all as they're far too numerous. I appreciate that Kelly is trying to clean up all of Neelix's articles (dozens upon dozens of AFDs) but AFD is not clean up and a bit more time should have been taken in selecting which articles go to AFD. Mkdw ^talk 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not one of Neelix's articles in any case. It just happens to be in the field of human trafficking and he edited it once, but he's not the main author.169.231.54.192 (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Batstone (if that's kept) or simply delete as News, Books and Highbeam found some links but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 08:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is it not notable, but the intent is clearly promotional. An attempt to include every organization supporting a good cause is not appropriate for an encycopedia --we're not a directory of charities and more than of anything else. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ORG. Huffington Post, U.S. News & World Report, LA Times, Forbes, Oakland Local, Mashable, Huffington Post again, Wall Street Journal on their coworking space, The Guardian... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of sources posted above by Rhododendrites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Streetlight Support Services[edit]

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

Local organization that fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is seriously stretching to try and get it over notability bars: all of these references are brief as heck. Reference #8, which is supposed to support the sentence about the organisation's building, doesn't even mention any of that and only refers to it in one sentence literally saying that the people they interviewed "were aware of Streetlight Support Services in Toronto" (with no further detail about them). The Drover's Wife (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Andersen[edit]

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

Non-notable bodybuilder. The majority of references are to her facebook and personal page. Has not won any major competitions and the only thing of possible interest is a documentary using her as foil that has yet to come out with no predicatable impact. Never clear whether biggest female bodybuider refers to her impact (not) or her size but again there is not enough supporting references, Peter Rehse (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails the WP:BASIC criteria for a biography of a living person. No significant coverage in any independent reliable sources has been cited. And my own search found none -- in either English or Danish. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources in any language including Swedish that would make subject meet either our notability guideline for athletes or our general notability guideline for people. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diamante. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diamanté[edit]

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

nonremarkable brand name for a diamond substitute, no refs found Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page as a redirect to Rhinestone to resolve redlinks. Reverting to that first version is a possibility, though some sources define diamanté/diamante as a more generic term including similar objects which are not rhinestones. A redirect to disambiguation Diamante is another option. I think the word should take readers somewhere, but I've no strong feelings as to where. Certes (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diamante. There's no evidence of this on US trademark search, and at least one of the other topics listed on the disambiguation page (diamante poem) can be "diamanté". Peter James (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect obviously as this is not set for a full separately notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete - As per Peter James, or delete for lacking information that doesn't meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Palmer (judge)[edit]

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

This seems to be a random list of routine judgments by this justice. Nothing exceptional here. Even some of the Chief Justices of the Supreme_Court_of_British_Columbia don't warrant articles Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 174.6.102.144 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the name of the judge's court, the Supreme Court of British Columbia is not actually the court that is supreme in British Columbia; that would be the British Columbia Court of Appeal. "Supreme" in this case merely distinguishes it from even smaller local courts. This is similar to, for example, the New York Supreme Court, another "supreme court" that is not, in fact, supreme. Given that this is not the highest court in the province, I'd want to see specific bases for the judge's notability in the article, and I don't. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a judge of a high enough court for inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Manifesto[edit]

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

Article's subject does not appear to exist. Only link provided as a references links back directly to this article. KDS4444^Talk 00:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure it exists, but it is not clear to me that this is what it is called in English. See es:Manifiesto de Ginebra. Here is a book in English that talks about the matter (of the pretender to the Spanish throne stating opposition to Franco and calling for the monarchy to be restored). I am not yet convinced that the incident requires more cover than a sentence in Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona. —Kusma (t·c) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona. The nominator deserves a WP:TROUT for assuming that references linking back into an article are evidence of a hoax - particularly when the links go to an entry in the article's Bibliography section which gives full bibliographical details of the referenced work, complete with a working ISBN link. As User:Kusma notes, this declaration by the then pretender to the Spanish throne exists - and, in fact, page 23 of this source (which, despite not identifying itself, comes from the website of a highly reputable academic publisher, and appears to be part of "Britain and the Spanish Anti-Franco Opposition, 1940-1950" by David J. Dunthorn) specifically mentions it as the Geneva Manifesto. The corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia shows that a detailed and well-referenced article on the topic is perfectly feasible, though I am not entirely sure that a comparatively minor event deserves quite that amount of treatment here - however, it should certainly have at least a couple of sentences in the article on its author. PWilkinson (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I presume Ginebra is the Spanish spelling for Geneva. The question is whether the declaration is so notable that it needs a separate article or whether it should be merged to Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona. I am not qualified to judge. I certainly do not believe the hoax theory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search term:

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

Keep. I have added four ((cite book))s and very slightly expanded the lead with context explaining the name. @KDS4444: The referencing system in use at the time of AFD tagging is Harvard citations. Please also observe that WP:BEFORE B.6. says "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." This check was apparently not performed. At es:Manifiesto de Ginebra we have a good 10+k article, sourced and ready to translate. All-in-all there's nothing to debate at AFD here, and a ((withdraw)) could save some community time. As for the article title, that can be discussed at the article talk page. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sam Sailor, especially given the possibility of expanding based on the Spanish-language article. clpo13_(talk) 18:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator KDS4444^Talk 20:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NRL on Nine (2018-2022)[edit]

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

Seems to be original research, it is unreferenced and a google for "NRL on Nine" does not return any results Mattlore (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages which has the same issues:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the (2018-2022) article as being WP:TOOSOON. As for the second article about the current coverage, I think it should also be deleted as it is synthesis on a topic that is not sufficiently notable independent of the NRL league. NRL#Audience already covers the topic quite well, so I can't see much in the "NRL on Nine" article that is worth saving. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly WP:TOOSOON. Besides Nine owning the rights, the rest is speculation.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who Am I (Drapht album)[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator. Flat Out (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NALBUMS. "Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." Flat Out (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough content for an article. Not worth a redirect from this title. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article cites three reviews (two, now with archiveurls) and could be expanded to Start class: passes WP:NALBAMS.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is more than enough for an article to be start class & doesn't fail WP:NALBUMS . Dan arndt (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient improvements made Rainbow unicorn (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article content beyond the tracklisting is cobbled together largely from directory websites, posts by the artist's record company, and reviews that are either user-generated, from webzines of dubious reliability, or web forum posts. The only one that looks a reliable source is The Mercury and that's quite brief. The rest has been padded out to largely duplicate the section on the album in the Drapht article. I still don't see a good case for keeping this. --Michig (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that it has been included in the National Film and Sound Archive is not significant. Dan arndt (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not very. I mean, that's a notable thing, but not so much it "deserves" a separate article rather than a note in the band article - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oaks Centre[edit]

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

Non notable shopping centre, Can't find anything notability-wise, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Charles (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it apparently fails WP:GNG for lack of sources. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Move to List of articles which have been deleted -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on The Paul O'Grady Show[edit]

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft at its finest. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of information that is of no encyclopaedic value. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 04:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bois Beckett Forest[edit]

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

Forest does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG KDS4444^Talk 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Except for the one source cited, there appears no other sources to support the notability of this place. Does not meet WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge with Sherbrooke). I can understand why people would opine "delete". The article is badly titled (it should be either Beckett Woods Park or Parc du Bois-Beckett). The article didn't even state where this forest is located and was copied virtually verbatim from a tourist site. I've cleaned it up and found several references. It does have a certain amount of notability in Quebec, e.g. "Le bois Beckett, là pour rester". La Tribune and "Cinq balades à Sherbrooke". La Presse. Voceditenore (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a previous 2009 story in La Tribune. I think we have just enough that it barely meets WP:GEOLAND, even though I confess I'd never heard of it. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article about a city land deal to obtain land for the park. This is a common occurrence. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)*[reply]

@Mrfrobinson: Hey Mike, can you please provide a url to sustantiate you claim that this article [is] about a city land deal to obtain land for the park. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)((small|please pingme||[reply]

The link is in the comment right above. The article was by La Tribune. I am not going to copy and paste a link that is directly above my comment. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability requirements. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion this is notable, per WP:GEOLAND but also separately because of its documented scientific significance. Thparkth (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GEOLAND as per [26], [27], [28], [29]. There's also these sources, which provide some minor coverage: [30], [31]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the existing article that Rayman60 identified, this is a clear A10, new article duplicating an existing topic. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latinas and world war II[edit]

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

That this is part of a class project is not a reason to not delete it. If you wish to create a draft of an article, you must do so in your sandbox or risk it being deleted. Article currently has almost no content, has no references. KDS4444^Talk 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No content to speak of. Plus a WP:MINNOW to the creator or their teacher for misusing Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The topic is in theory notable, but a class project still has to fullfil minimum requirements for being in article space. Let's be nice and move the student's work to their userspace. If anyone can ID the teacher, they should be informed of best practices and related stuff from Wikipedia:SUP and friends. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Piotrus. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: I like the fact that they're trying to do this, but this is not the way how. I think the article should be developed in a sandbox (is that the right term? i.e. on-wiki but off encyclopaedia, in draft or user's page), and possibly an experienced editor assist/mentor them. Rather than reject them outright (and deleting it in this manner may feel like procedure for us but for an outsider it can convey the image of a closed shop), we should encourage them. The teacher did mess up by jumping straight in to the article before being ready and even asking us to leave them alone whilst they fumble around, but let's assume good faith, extend the hand of friendship and help them achieve this goal. At the end of it, we could have 20+ kids who understand how to use wiki, what references and neutral/objective tone mean and maybe a couple will stick around and make more contribs to the project. I'm willing to help where I can, i.e. with tone, referencing, formatting etc. Not an expert in the field so may need support with certain bits. Rayman60 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I left a Welcome-Student message on the creator's talk page. Hopefully, it points them in the right direction. As for the article itself, I would err on the side of good faith to be more encouraging and less discouraging. The article's topic itself can meet WP:GNG, given the proper citations (which we can only hope the article's creator has some in mind). If some action has to be taken, I'd suggest Userfy or Sandbox. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Piotrus. clpo13_(talk) 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All, I wanted to raise to everyone's attention that a similar article on the exact same topic was recently created. But looking at the bigger picture and seeing similar articles and subsequent AFDs in the last week (i.e. Latino Women and their Migrations to America and Migration from Latin America to Europe), I'm willing to bet all of these are part of the same class activity. Not to mention one of the authors is also named Latinostudies2015. I strongly recommend that someone more knowledgeable than me get to the bottom of this and if at all possible get in touch with the class instructor. I really like the effort, but they should be advised on Wikipedia's guidelines. Making it a more clean process rather than haphazard article creation would make it easier for everyone (Assuming it hasn't already been project-ified). Thanks, all! GabeIglesia (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think my stance has changed somewhat. I do not like the article as it is, and I don't like the fact that it's live. I have attempted to reach out to the editor, they're also aware of the debate here, and are not engaging with other editors or updating us with a response to the issues raised. I would support a Delete now and let them build the article in a sandbox or similar, and then present it. However I've also discovered that there's an article called Hispanic Americans in World War II which is a featured article, and feel that anything worthwhile could be added to that article (however it's a featured article of excellent content so it would be difficult for them). Rayman60 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reality TV Movie[edit]

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

Non-notable low budget film. No reliable 3rd party sources that discuss the subject. Fails WP:NFILM: no awards, no reviews etc. Tassedethe (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We could probably redirect to the director's article, but I'm concerned that he may not meet notability guidelines either. His only claim to fame other than this film is that he won some dance competitions, but I'm not certain that they're important enough to count on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, both the movie and director's article were clearly written by the director (he's a Latin American dancer; username LADanz). —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

filmmaker:(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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per film notability, fail. Same editor also created the article for the writer/star/producer/director. A vanity page full of COI issues that's getting listed now too. Rayman60 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rayman60, I'll try to take a look at the director's article and give my input at that AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reasonable arguments on both sides, all of which are basically judgement calls about the quality of the references. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taken by Storm[edit]

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

Does not appear to have made a significant enough splash in independent, secondary sources to justify its own article. The content can be discussed at its author's bio, Ross McKitrick. The article as it is now (and has been for several years) is just 2 promotional blurbs. — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found three reviews, two of which are in peer-reviewed journals. It also seems to be mentioned or used as a source in some academic work like this and this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two reviews in academic journals meets WP:BKCRIT. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be relevant to note that when I edited Ross McKitrick to use what I felt was neutral language: He has authored works in the field of climate change, the nominator posted on the talk page Regarding this edit, I don't see the sources in any way supporting that Ross McKitrick publishes works in the field of climate change.. If this book is disappeared, it will help support the contention that he hasn't written in the field.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? His article explicitly discusses this book in the lead and body. I'm suggesting that we move coverage of the book to his bio, instead of having a whole separate article. How would that obscure anything in his bio? — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for that discussion — I responded on your talk page--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence this is really a notable book. Worlcat shows 172 holdings, which is not very great for a popular book on this topic,. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps redirect to Ross McKitrick' because at least he currently has an article....as for this article, I only found some passing mentions at News, Books, browsers and Higheam. Not much for a better article, SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete - After further review, I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Thparkth (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Jonathan A Jones. The references added by Tokyogirl79 indicate a level of notability sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). If it is decided that the book doesn't warrant its own page, a redirect to the author's biography should be left in its place. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tokyogirl79's sources show that this book meets WP:BKCRIT. clpo13_(talk) 18:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus to either keep or merge, but there are fairly strong arguments that the content of the article is too extensive to be merged into anything. That being said, I'm closing this with no prejudice against a merge discussion taking place in the near future, if any editor believes that that's the best solution. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

International reactions to a US-specific event are likely of questionable notability at best. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United States presidential election, 2012. Might or might not WP:GNG, but this should be chopped down since this gives undue weight to other countries. Most of this is irrelevant anyway. epic genius (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't exist in any other languages, but it's long and would take too much work to merge. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is nothing encyclopedic here. It's just a grab-bag of guarded, tactful diplomatic statements made at the time by a wide range of political leaders (which doesn't necessarily reflect their actual working relationship with Obama during his subsequent tenure as president); and the stated views of various media organisations whose various preferences and biases will dictate their view anyway. There's no analysis or summary of the topic. This is just a very long and very boring wikiquote page. Aspirex (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - One could argue that the responses by notable heads of states to a notable event are notable (especially when it concerns the most notable head of state on the planet), but that said, the article is a considerably long list at this point. I would love to see this kept or at least condensed/merged, but not outright deleted all together. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was tempted by the merge option until I saw the article. Too lengthy to effectively fit in elsewhere, however it contains good info which will no doubt eventually be removed from publications and servers over time, it's useful and nice that it's somewhat concisely(!) summarised here. Rayman60 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "International reactions to..." is an established article type, the subject is important enough to be worth it, and the material is clearly sufficiently extensive that a split is appropriate--perhaps even necessary. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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