< 5 December	7 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mulligan[edit]

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

Searches overall found nothing to suggest solid independent notability and only finding passing mentions for the TV shows, I found nothing to even suggest a redirect to one of the listed shows. WP:TNT at best if ever notable. It's also worth noting there's some serious vandalism here (see history) that emphasizes how this is simply best deleted. I suggest it would be best if deleted. Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 23:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Part of this message is actually from my PROD, "Searches overall found nothing to suggest solid independent notability and only finding passing mentions for the TV shows, I found nothing to even suggest a redirect to one of the listed shows. WP:TNT at best if ever notable. It's also worth noting there's some serious vandalism here (see history) that emphasizes how this is simply best deleted." with which I still confirm and echo supporting as there's simply nothing obvious to suggest better notability and improvement here. Notifying tagger Gadfium. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found some sources and have updated the page. Not sure if this helps or not! --TheDomain (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of those new sources help. Those sources, taken together, don't meet WP:BASIC, and I quote: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" Schwede 66 18:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks non-trivial coverage. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 09:08, 14 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Kohn[edit]

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

Unfortunately the author removed the PROD along with the maintenance templates with no explanations at all so here we are. I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly non-notable as my searches found several links at Books, News and browsers but mostly her local news reports and nothing outstandingly better.". SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rachael Kohn is well known in the Australian religious community across all religions. Her radio program is an institution in this country and has been running for nearly 20 years.

Rather than being known for "her local news reports", Dr Kohn is known for her leadership role in the interfaith community. She has written several notable books. She was named one of Australia's 50 top intellectuals - a remarkable achievement for a religious commentator. Dr Kohn recently spoke at the G20 Interfaith Summit, she moderates many panels - here's just one example is called on to comment on many different issues; such as this conflict within Jewish media and her comments on the man at the centre of Australia's most recent hostage crisis made her a target of notorious Australian right-wing shock jock Andrew Bolt. In sum - Rachael Kohn is far more than "just a local reporter" in Australia, she is a significant public figure, well known to many people in the Australian community, and meets the requirements for notability. Ethel the aardvark (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per coverage and reviews

Articles primarily about her include

Hope, Deborah (8 January 2000), "In good spirit", The Australian

"Why God survives", Mosman Daily, 20 November 2003

Along with The Age piece already in the article there is enough for WP:GNG.

Hope (2000) in part states "Among the 500,000 or so listeners who make up the Radio National audience, Kohn's program has achieved cult status."

Extensive reviews of her books include

Goddard, Susannah (2 June 2007), "Oddballs of history", Herald-Sun

Preston, Noel (29 November 2003), "Imagine there are no limits to God", Courier-Mail

McGirr, Michael (20 December 2003), "The Good God Guide", The Age

Zwartz, Barney (28 July 2007), "Curious Obsessions", The Age

"Books The New Believers", Central Coast Express, 31 October 2003

Oberg, Terry (19 May 2007), "books non-fiction", The Courier-Mail

Preston (2003) says she is "One of Australia's foremost commentators on the phenomenon of religion, Rachael Kohn, pictured, presenter of the ABC Radio National program, The Spirit of Things,"

There are also some shorter ones such as

Crean, Mike (28 January 2006), "THE NEW BELIEVERS: RE-IMAGINING GOD BY RACHAEL KOHN.", The Press (Christchurch)

Enough for WP:NAUTHOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:36, 7 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. Also, as this was a subject requested deletion of a relatively unknown person, it falls under WP:BIODEL SpinningSpark 02:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Teitel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Requested deletion at User talk:Dancealongtheartery, and they don't seem notable enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- delete nomination seems in order; doesn't pass referenced policy guides cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems there's hardly much better signs of obvious improvement here and this is another case of a long troubled article so WP:TNT at best. Notifying the only noticeably still active AfDer Whpq. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's some minor coverage, and it local to Toronto. Given the lack of additional significant coverage, notability is not met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Local coverage doesn't take away from passing WP:GNG. That's not an argument to use in an AfD, Whpq. However, I don't know that the Torontoist is a RS and that's where she's covered the most. I can't say "Keep" if the sources in the article aren't RS, so if anyone knows for sure about the Torontoist, please weigh in and ping me. She may be WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know it, is essentially an online magazine for local Toronto arts and culture, and would probably qualify as a reliable source. However, when considering notability, I would take into account the type and scope of coverage, and for me, what's out there is not sufficient. Other editors, may of course, come to another conclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do, for the record, sometimes use Torontoist for sourcing, but I use it the way I would use Now or Xtra!: reliable enough for supplementary confirmation of facts in an article that's already been sourced over GNG, but not widely distributed enough to make an article suitable for Wikipedia if it actually has to carry the GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While she's certainly talented, I'm not seeing anything here that rises to the level of wider prominence needed to satisfy a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Since reference #3 (Toronto Star) led to a document summary rather than the actual text of the reference in question, I just ran a ProQuest check to find it — and it isn't actually "an article about her poetry", as claimed, but merely the text of one of her poems. So it doesn't actually count as media coverage about her at all. She garners just 17 other hits in that database — of which she's the bylined author, rather than the subject, of eight of them, and is merely namechecked in almost all of the remainder. So there's just no real sourcing out there with which this can be improved. Vaughan Today, a defunct weekly community newspaper, was in the same "okay for supplementary facts, but not able to bring the notability" class of sourcing that I alluded to in my response to Whpq; now it's doubly clobbered by the fact that the link's been cybersquatted by a non-notable blog and thus no longer even verifies the claims being cited to it. So the strongest source we've got here, in reality, is The Jewish Tribune — but that's (a) a deadlink, and (b) not actually being used to support anything in the article except the fact that she's Jewish, and thus still not actually contributing notability as such. So it's a delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can ever actually be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 11 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 redirect to List of North American supercentenarians. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercentenarians of the Caribbean[edit]

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

This article covers an arbitrary subset of List of North American supercentenarians which creates an unnecessary maintenance burden. There are substantial differences between the inclusion of people on the two pages even though the data should be exactly the same for the two lists when looking at people from X country. Roll the Caribbean info into the North American page and then delete the Caribbean page. The people on the list are further covered on two global lists. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' agreed, seems unnecessary cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to N. American list, obviously. EEng (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to North American list. There's no nexus between being Caribbean and being long-lived. WP:FANCRUFT. David in DC (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Canadian Paul 06:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN as no sources discuss this particular data set. Only references are GRG lists (note that none of these sources discuss "Caribbean supercentenarians" and are just a big table of names) which do nothing to establish notability. All names in this article are available in other Longevity articles. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:54, 13 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ihemadu[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were only passing mentions at Books, News and browsers enough to even suggest what I would've found continuing to search deeper. I was actually PRODing this with "Notability and improvement questionably enough for PROD as my searches found nothing better than passing mentions at Books, News and browsers." until I noticed both the September 2006 and March 2007 PRODs so here we are. Notifying first and only still active user PRODer RJFJR and Nigerian user Wikicology for insight. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. In spite of the credible claim of significance, I don't see him passing the basic criteria. He has not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources required to merit a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although there's a valid potential claim of notability here, none of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines can ever be passed just by asserting a claim of notability if the quality of reliable sourcing available to support the claim isn't there. Sometimes it's just WP:TOOSOON. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if better sources ever start panning out. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Faizat Ghazli[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He appears to have played for the Malaysian national U-23 football team. Is playing U-23 not considered a claim to notability? As for sources, I couldn't find much about him (only unreliable sources such as Facebook), so depending if U-23 playing is enough to establish notability this comment can be taken as either a keep or a delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly rules out youth football as a claim to notability: Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Delete as lacking coverage in reliable sources and failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 12:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY for now. JTtheOG (talk) 18:59, 12 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 01:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee[edit]

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

I'm proposing this because all, or almost all of the edits to it have been performed by a nest of sock puppets. Interested editors should examine Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IceTeaKing and consider whether this article has been created correctly, or for some other purpose. Does it possess genuine notability or does it fail WP:CORP?

This is a neutral nomination since I am genuinely unsure how to proceed. The article was created before the sock puppetry was discovered, thus before the sock drawer, which is large, was/were all blocked Fiddle Faddle 18:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly meets the GNG, and that's really all that matters since the group that created it (which appears to be a class) definitely isn't one of the banned paid editing firms that we could just apply G5 to. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful. In which case I withdraw the nomination with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle 20:29, 6 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 Kristian Leif Andersen, Eric Tobias, and Mike Fitzgerald (entrepreneur) per the unanimous consensus of the discussion. (Note—since I don't see it mentioned below—that a previous article on Eric Tobias was deleted in 2013 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Tobias.) I'm leaving Scott Dorsey undeleted for now; it can be renominated by itself if anyone so desires, as can High Alpha if it survives the prod. Deor (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the AFD from Scott Dorsey and closed it as No Consensus, since - functionally - that's the close (Kept, can be relisted immediately, etc). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Leif Andersen[edit]

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

This is a quadruple-nomination for four related biographies, for the same reason (plus a request for a second opinion on two others).

Each one is a "vanity article" (aka Self-promotion and Publicity), written by someone with a potential conflict of interest to High Alpha. The creators and only major editors of these articles are user:Ekruko (whose sole contribution to WP is the Andersen article) and User:Dbeechler (whose only contribution to WP is to create the other three biographies). Each biography is primarily a list of the companies that they've worked for, only some of which are notable in their own right, with the salient information actually discussing those companies rather than the person. Therefore I do not believe that they meet the basic notability criteria for biographies because the sources that mention them are neither independent of the subject nor independent of each other, and also that the reliable sources which are cited only mention these people in passing. The awards which are cited in each of the biographies are awards that would not be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards (e.g. "Indianapolis Business Journal's 40 under 40" (although I do acknowledge Dorsey having a list of more significant awards received).

Regarding the articles' authors, I believe these are paid promotions. After a quick google search, I found that Ekruko and Dbeechler have potential conflicts of interest with High Alpha.

Relatedly... There are also two articles about companies that relate to this nomination that, if commenters on THIS AfD thought warranted specific scrutiny, I could nominate separately:

The article on High Alpha itself is of very questionable notability and was ALSO created by Dbeechler. I note that as of its very first edit it was marked as a "good article"[1].
The article on High Alpha's main investment, TinderBox Inc. is similarly questionable. It was created by user:Alester10 who has a potential conflict of interest. Note that the usertalkpage has several previous warnings for COI editing

-- Witty lama 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have left a message on the talkpage on each of the named editors here about this nomination. Witty lama 12:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I looked at all of the articles and the sourcing was simply not solid enough to suggest better established notability and improvement here. Notifying past users Largoplazo and OluwaCurtis (both from Mike Fitzgerald) and also DGG who asks to be notified of AfDs where he may have some familiar input. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The primary sources cited are not enough to establish notability of all four subjects. Promotional phrases and Google bomb are evident. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 08:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Scott Dorsey separately--he is much more notable than the others, having been ceo of a 1 billion dollar company; there's plausible notability here. Delete the others: they are non-notableand promotional, and the sooner we remove them the better. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment DGG - I agree that Dorsey is the least problematic (as mentioned in the nomination re. awards), so I think keeping him and deleting the others is a very viable solution - without necessarily relisting him here separately (if people prefer it that way). However - could you (and others) please also comment on the two articles about the companies: High Alpha and TinderBox - and whether I should bother listing them for nomination here too? Witty lama 19:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated TinderBox for G11; ; I'm trying Prod on High Alpha; if it's removed , we'll need AfD. They can't really be includued here--they're too different. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes - so we agree. by "here" I meant in AfD (in their own separate nomination), not here within this nomination. That's why I mentioned them as related but separate articles for comment upon in my nomination text. Witty lama

Delete 3 of the 4. Agree with relisting Scott Dorsey. The rest are promotional and non-notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 14 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Karim Karimi[edit]

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

It is difficult to see where notability lies here. I prodded the article but this was removed by the original author without providing any better refs. It appears to fail WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On list of publications, only one is mentioned to be published. The rest show as in the publishing process. That said, the only book that has been published has limited information available on it. I agree that there is no evidence to suggest that this subject meets the criteria for his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.228 (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that he does not meet WP:GNG at this time. If, in the future, he does then a new article can be created. MarnetteD|Talk 16:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, should evidence of non-trivial coverage come forward at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:35, 9 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Paulsen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While this was kept in an AFD discussion back in 2006, both WP:NPOL and our reliable sourcing rules have evolved significantly since then, and this no longer meets contemporary standards. Her notability remains limited to a city council seat in a city not large enough to confer an automatic NPOL pass on its city councillors, and a non-winning candidacy for higher office — and the only actual source here is a deadlinked article which is actually about somebody else who later outyouthed her "youngest person ever elected to council" claim, which means that the article doesn't pass WP:GNG in lieu of failing NPOL, because it isn't sourced to any RS coverage of Paulsen. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat -- my sweeps didn't find enough to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:32, 30 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 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She's done nothing notable except gain political office. This office is not notable enough to satisfy notability, evidenced by the fact that only one other councillor of equal standing has an article. Rayman60 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relatively unremarkable post, and otherwise fails WP:GNG, as per nominator. JTtheOG (talk) 05:12, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Watson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Old BLP and GNG tags from 2008 still reflect the current problems with the article. Sources do not establish notability and provide poor biographical significance. Delta13C (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She easily passes WP: AUTHOR as a New York Times bestselling author. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR does not include the criterion of being an author of a book that makes a bestseller list. There are discussions going on at WP:Notability_(books), but there is no rule yet. I think it is a better policy not to simply use inclusion in a bestseller list to establish notability of a book, as these are based purely on sale volume. Even if we were to use the NYTimes bestseller list, the subject's book would be notable, and not the author of it. According to WP:AUTHOR in this case, the subject the person must be "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" or their book must be the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" or "The person's work (or works) either...(c) has won significant critical attention." There are other criteria, but I don't think they could possibly apply in this case. Delta13C (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One book, made the "self help" list for two weeks in 2007, then she seems to have faded away. We know that the lists are not scientific, so I wouldn't rely on that alone for notability. LaMona (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all actually found enough links to suggest a better article here but nothing at Scholar, all in all, though examining these is actually not suggesting a better article at all as they're simply passing mentions and coverage. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 11 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bailando Bolivia[edit]

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

After some research I believe that page, and its corresponding season pages are a series of hoaxes filled with false information. According to this article the first season and all 9 others aired on August 10, 2015. The Spanish language article, [2], says that the first series began April 2015 and there has since been a second. Searching for the various entrants suggests that actually they have appeared in different versions of the Argentine entries. Add to that all of these articles are mostly in Spanish, and are entirely unreferenced Jac16888 ^Talk 23:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was looking into translating this, but maybe it's not worth it. From the Spanish Wikipedia page, the official website given is a Facebook page, and the one reference that's there is a mention of the show being renewed for a second season. At the very least, the English Wikipedia pages with false information should be deleted, then maybe there can be a discussion if it's notable enough to translate the Spanish Wiki page. —2macia22 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost all of the search results point to these pages. It doesn't seem notable enough to include here. NC4PK (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant hoax. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, "Ashley Tisdale" and a list of Argentinians in an article about the Bolivian "Dancing with the Stars"; seriously?! - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the Spanish article, it started this year. I can't for one moment believe that they've had seven seasons in one year (they seem to have had two). And, we do get quite a lot of this construction of faked-up or fantasy tables on enwiki. I suppose it's a safer hobby than kicking rottweilers, but when it just gets deleted, what do they get out of it? Peridon (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles say the show appears on Red Uno de Bolivia. I went to their website and found that their schedule includes Bailando por un Sueño, which is the title of a dance competition program with series with franchises in several countries. In addition to all the signs of fakery already presented above, I doubt that the same network is hosting more than one dance competition program. Moreover, Google finds no mention of the phrase "bailando bolivia" on their website: "bailando bolivia" site:reduno.com.bo. And a search for "bailando bolivia" without "sueño" leads to these articles and a bunch of download sites: "bailando bolivia" -sueño. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:24, 12 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. joe decker ^talk 17:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go Dda Gareth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. One review by the BBC, multiple reviews required to establish notability. Does not appear to satisfy any other criteria of WP:NBOOK. The fact that it may be kept in school libraries, a claim that is not sourced, does not establish notability anyway. Safiel (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The review referenced at the site mentioned in the second AfD appears to be a review in conjunction with the sale of the book, which would not count towards notability. Safiel (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally WP:PRODed this because, "Could not establish notability. Could not find additional references. Tagged for notability since 2008. Unable to deorphan." ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 25 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 20:24, 29 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 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs. Nothing doing. I read the previous afds which ended no consensus for the obvious problems of translation and RS. It isn't the job of WP to guess at notability - there is none in the article itself. Szzuk (talk) 17:43, 6 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Necio[edit]

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

poorly sourced promo The Banner talk 21:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure that it's promo, but the individual still does not meet notability standards. Logicequalslogical (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is sourced with unfamiliar-to-westerners news sources. The first and third ref establish notability and the second ref is a dead link. Certainly not the best article ever written, but there is no reason for its deletion. Bfpage |leave a message 03:18, 24 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 20:23, 29 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 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient news coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 12 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 Alan Minshaw. Never close in something I've !voted in but outcome's pretty bloody obvious .... so to save this being relisted and everyones time being wasted I'm closing as Merge. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Tweeks[edit]

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

This does not appear to meet WP:NORG, and the only coverage I could find are passing mentions in relation to its sponsorship of a motor racing team. QueenCake (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Miyagawa (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:27, 29 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! 01:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if not enough for a separate article, merge with Alan Minshaw. Peter James (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alan Minshaw actually as I'm not seeing anything compelling enough to suggest keeping and I only found some passing mentions. Notifying car enthusiast Davey2010 who may also have some England input. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Alan Minshaw - Unfortunately the only thing I'm finding are all mentions, Even books contains nothing but mentions so as it's clearly non notable it seems better to merge to the founder than to outright delete. (Thanks SwisterTwister for the ping). –Davey2010^Talk 23:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alan Minshaw. Not finding enough source coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 6 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 redirect to DJGPP. There's not strictly a consensus for this redirect in the comments, but reading between the lines, I suspect most participants in the AfD would approve. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Delorie[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Sources are the subject's personal website and resume, and I cannot find better sources online. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've just added two book sources [3] and it's obvious there are more, though none appear to discuss the subject in much detail. I think we would probably keep the article in most similar AfDs per WP:CREATIVE #3 but I admit it's borderline. Msnicki (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although Books and browsers found some links, there's nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Yes, I instigated the article, so I should be very much pro, but I'm not. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure the DJGPP article reserves to stay. But OTOH I'm not sure whether this justifies the existance of the article on DJ, since his work on DJGPP seems to be his sole "claim to fame". Either way, I won't hold a grudge if the consensus will be to delete the article. -- Syzygy (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 29 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 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DJGPP. This isn't how I thought I'd vote, but I'm not seeing the coverage I expected. I think part of the problem is that a lot of the coverage would have happened in the early days of the Web. However, a great deal of this information has been digitized, and it's often possible to at least find text hits in many of the likely places, such as programming journals. And what these sources say is almost always the same sentence: "In 1989, DJ Delorie ported GCC to MSDOS." And then, almost invariably, the source describes DJGPP. For example, [4] from Dr. Dobb's Journal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DJGPP, as per above, particularly NinjaRobotPirate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jiong[edit]

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

Not notable and WP is not a dictionary of emoji/characters. Mostly though no evidence of notability, as there’s just one ref and that is a dead link, and unclear how good a ref that is anyway; the article implies it was on another topic. Given the hatnote it might make sense as an Dab page, in which case the character can be included with a link to wiktionary, e.g. wikt:囧. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the rise of Jiong from an obscure Chinese character to one of the most widely used emoticons is a notable and long-lasting phenomenon. The article needs better sourcing, but Jiong is far more notable than Duang, for example. It has also inspired some extremely popular films such as Lost in Thailand, whose Chinese title is Thai Jiong, and Lost in Hong Kong (Gang Jiong). -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it just should be expanded as Zanhe said. WP:WORDISSUBJECT states that it should include information on the social or historical significance of the term. This is very much doable. Ceosad (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment then where are the sources? Being used in a couple of film titles is not enough and without sources is original research. If it really is a notable and long-lasting phenomenon, especially an internet one, it should be easy to find sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately numerous China-related articles are poorly written and poorly sourced. I've just added three scholarly sources to the article. The huge phenomenon has been studied in quite a few English-language academic works. -Zanhe (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 29 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 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – plenty of Chinese language reliable sources, such as this article by Apple Daily and this by Southern Metropolis Daily. Try to search for native-language sources WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD. sst✈^(discuss) 02:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a descriptive article about languages which is acceptable under WP:NOT. STSC (talk) 02:37, 7 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leiki[edit]

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

This article fails WP:CORP and WP:SOAPBOX. WP:DEL4 is a very close call considering the tone of this article and WP:COI. I tried to find reliable and independent sources for this article, but all of them struggle to cope with WP:CORPDEPTH or are not independently reported. Saying this makes me retch, but the best source was this one in which the CEO proudly states how he used Wikipedia for advertising to get into USA (WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COI). The awards received are typical third-rate startup company awards and do not prove notability. This page has been recreated after being speedily deleted back in 2009, and has somehow survived for years. Ceosad (talk) 15:50, 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 14:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:TNT at best as the Finnish Wiki has some sources although I'm not familiar with any of them but again there's not much convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 30 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 16:58, 6 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 no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tashiana Washington[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Absolutely not. Stars in The Jim Gaffigan Show, How to Make It In America, Gimme Shelter.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/gimme-the-loot-20130321

http://bullettmedia.com/article/tashiana-washington-on-gimme-the-loot-south-by-and-going-to-graffiti-school/

http://www.vibe.com/2013/03/vixen-chat-tashiana-washington-talks-gimme-the-loot-and-actresses-she-admires/

http://filmmakermagazine.com/94751-livi-newman-on-shooting-successful-sex-scenes-at-the-sundance-directors-lab/#.VlJQp8rOA55 Alejandrad117 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, I'm not quite as emphatic as Alejandrad117 above. However, I think there's enough coverage to warrant a keep: [5] from Complex, [6] from Slant Magazine, [7] from Vibe, [8] from Paper. I can see how it could be debatable, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. This is a COI entry by a user who is currently gunning to recreate the article on Eric West, another non-notable trumped-up faux celebrity, which article has been deleted six times. Softlavender (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if neede at best as not only is IMDb summarizing her career well, my searches found links at Books, browsers and Highbeam but they're all basically routine coverage and passing mentions. Simply not much for a more compelling keep yet, SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 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 14:26, 29 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 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:19, 7 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. No !votes aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Doldersum[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable and also speedy and PROD material as my searches simply found nothing at all and it simply seems he's best known for Big & Small. It's worth noting the original author was removed of his editing capabilities exactly one day later or else I would've tagged this as G5. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm curious why you brought this to AfD if you think it's 'speedy and PROD material'. I certainly don't think it's speedy material, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage around. I did find this. --Michig (talk) 19:06, 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 14:26, 29 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 16:57, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chithra Lakshmanan[edit]

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

Seemingly questionably notable and improvable as the best links I found were only this, this, this and this. There's simply nothing to suggest he's better notable and the article is improvable as keepable. I considered speedy and PROD but it seems AfD is best for this. Notifying past users and taggers AllyD and DGG (no actors I know, DGG, but since you once edited this ). SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 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 14:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail basic WP:GNG. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 6 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 Not enough sources for a stand alone article. The common name makes its more difficult to find sources. History preserved if sources are found. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt Souls[edit]

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

musical ensemble that fails all 12 elements of WP:BAND. While they've released material on Moving Shadow, #5 requires 2 or more albums - which they do not have. Alvarado may be notable on his own, but clark is not, failing #6. The Dissident Aggressor 06:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches clearly found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alvin Risk. Doesn't merit a standalone article but should be covered in the article on the notable member. A source that can be cited to confirm basic facts: [9]. --Michig (talk) 15:33, 29 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 16:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 14 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 no consensus. Mergers can continue to be discussed. Sandstein 18:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoko (doll)[edit]

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

(Copied from Talk:Hoko (doll)#Bogus)

I cannot find anything in Japanese about this supposed doll. The spelling wikt:歩子 does exist in Japanese, but only as a female given name, most commonly read as Ayuko. The reading hoko also exists in Japanese, but only for the spelling wikt:矛, which means spear, halberd. The corresponding Japanese article for the reading at ja:ほこ does not list 歩子, and the article for the spelling at ja:歩子 does not exist. I cannot find this term in any Japanese dictionary; see also http://www.weblio.jp/content/歩子 for the spelling (no entry exists), http://www.weblio.jp/content/ほこ for the reading (no 歩子 anywhere on that page). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any evidence either. It is up to the OP to provide some hints as to where this came from. Move any useful content into Japanese traditional dolls Imaginatorium (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is obviously a mistake, since it should be 這子 (ほうこ) or Hōko. That term and doll in fact exists: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. In English: [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. I can't judge yet whether this is enough to create a separate article, but it is definitely not bogus. Michitaro (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have corrected the kanji in the article since that mistake should not be allowed to remain even as the article is subject to an AfD review. Michitaro (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you, Michitaro. I was not familiar with this custom, and with both the anon's reading and spelling incorrect, I didn't find anything relevant. Now that I have something to go on, I note by way of comparison that the JA Wikipedia does not have a separate article at ja:這子, and that it only appears in eleven other articles when searching for the string, of which three appear to be in titles listed as article references. After reading around a bit, I'm not sure if this passes muster for notability purposes; I defer to others' judgment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the JA Wiki has it or not is one issue to consider, but in the end, each wiki makes up its own mind. I would need to research it some more to see if I think it deserves its own article, but my initial reaction is that an article combining amagatsu (天児) and hōko makes the most sense if there is to be an article. Michitaro (talk) 02:20, 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! 01:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient evidence that we have enough reliably sourced information to demonstrate notability or justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Hōko (doll) I have to completely disagree with DAJF. Not only did Michitaro provide excellent information, but my own searches have turned up more. I'm going to expand the article today. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I found this article on JSTOR, but I don't have full access. Hoko dolls are discussed on several pages of the article. [20] Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to JSTOR and unfortunately that article is discussing another kind of hoko, a kind of float used in the Gion Festival. Michitaro (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darn. Thanks for looking Michitaro. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If not left as individual articles, it might be less awkward to expand Japanese traditional dolls rather than to try to combine them under a forced name given that they are linked in one period but separate later (and both hōko and amagatsu should appear there regardless). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (very much so). I think the desperate desire to preserve any entry which is not completely wrong leads to huge numbers of really scrappy and disconnected not-really-articles. WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and "Hoko (doll)", even corrected to "Hōko (doll)" is not a reader-friendly title in an English language work. I looked at Japanese traditional dolls, and though this really isn't my subject, I think the first sentence is "all wrong". Japanese dolls are known by all sorts of names (as the article shows), and 人形 means "doll" or "figurine", not "human shape". I can't really see that writing the Japanese generic term for "doll" is even necessary or helpful. Whereas obscure words like dogū might benefit not only from consistent romanisation but also a kanji "reverse gloss". Imaginatorium (talk) 15:35, 12 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colored days of the week[edit]

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

I can see no real reason for this article to exist. It's just an unreferenced WP:LIST, and not one that anyone would ever search for. Why would I, or anyone for that matter, want to know exactly which combinations of colors and days exist, and which don't? Some of the combinations aren't even "days". "Mad Wednesday" directs you to a 1947 comedy film that was once titled that, while "Ruby Thursday" is apparently a character from Marvel Comics... And, if this list was actually completed, how long would it need to be to include every single combination that has ever existed at any point in any country? Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless. As a start I took out the non-color lines as they don't match the title at all. Good, Great, Mad are not colors. Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also you cannot use WP:Redlinks as the list creator does, at least in some cases, for combinations of colours and days which will never have articles because they don't exist, right? I'm going to add to the List deletions page, because that's really what this is. If this was pruned and restructured as a standard list, would it be salvageable? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay it could be, but I think the question is whether it's worth salvaging in the first place.Thegreatluigi (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was a black day when this was created. Maybe Colors associated with days of the week would be feasible (see Colors of the day in Thailand, which states it has some significance in Hinduism), but a table ablaze in red is hardly the answer. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely useless article, although Clarityfiend could have something there. JTtheOG (talk) 05:24, 9 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. And replace with disambiguation page. Sandstein 18:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance[edit]

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

If not deleted, this article should at least be split. Half of this article is a disambiguation page (The Alliance (professional wrestling), professional wrestling faction which ostensibly consisted of World Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling) and the other half are examples of alliances and the definition (Holy Alliance, coalition of Russia, Austria, and Prussia created in 1815) Dat GuyWiki (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of things based on whether they have the word "alliance" in the title, from NATO to The Alliance (The Office). I find it a bit sad that so many editors worked over so many years to assemble what I believe to be an utterly useless assemblage of what is basically Things that Have this Word in the Title. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Alliance (disambiguation) here. We already have Military alliance / List of military alliances and Political alliance (which has its own built-in list). Between them, many of the entries on this page are already covered. The rest are partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge with the disambiguation page - because that is essentially all it is. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps best is the best option here. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a merge with Disambiguation page is an option being considered, I'm adding to:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alliance (disambiguation). Remove the WP:DICDEF, and you're basically left with a disambiguation page. I also considered listifying, but we already have a List of military alliances and political alliance is basically just a list on its own. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:21, 11 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Max Goodwin[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)

Delete WP:BLP of a businessperson and blogger, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability — it basically just asserts that he exists, and reads far more like the kind of PR profile one might expect to find on his own website than like an actual encyclopedia article. Further, the referencing here is far too strongly reliant on primary, user-generated and other unreliable sources — the websites of directly affiliated organizations, calendars of event listings, his IMDB profile, etc. — with the few properly reliable sources not being sufficient in number, nor substantively enough about him in most cases, to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of any subject-specific inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Notable sources including IMDb and VEVO. Oldcaged (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

~~— Oldcaged (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and Vevo are not reliable sources; they're user-generated sources which cannot support notability in a BLP, because they don't constitute media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. A well known athlete in swimming^[1]^[2]. I agree, he is notable. Rosyangel121 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

~~— Rosyangel1121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. It's a tricky one, I think he has notability definitely, but not sure if it's enough. I do agree though slightly with the above comments, he has got references on high profile websites including Vevo and IMDb, plus his swimming career is clearly stated on the UK governing body for swimming, British Swimming. Helloradiant (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

~~— Helloradiant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. The individual seems to have the support from high profile people (Ben Patrick Johnson) and (Stedman Pearson) which is stated in the original article submission. Surly this should indicate some kind of notability on top of everything else. I'd suggest to keep the article. The individual believe will grow drastically with other notable sources popping up, which can then be added as of when they are published. Removing the article would result in starting this all over again. He does have notable sources like mentioned above from high profile websites. Mechanicinformal (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

~~— Mechanicinformal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. Glad others agree. Oldcaged (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked sock. FuriouslySerene (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on this this revision, Dragonfly009 appears to be the subject of the article. I don't know if that's relevant here or not. Also, I've withdrawn my keep rationale intentionally. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reviewed cited sources and did not find significant secondary coverage. A brief search suggests to me that the required coverage is not likely to be found. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - citations provided clearly do not establish notability. I couldn't turn up anything better either. Based on the above votes, wondering if a sockpuppet investigation is in order. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've submitted them to SPI. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:42, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akkel Ali Seikh[edit]

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

None of the cited references actually mention Akkel Ali Seikh, except one which seems to be a circular reference right back to this article here on Wikipedia. I'm struggling to find any of the contents of this article substantiated by reliable 3rd party sources, or indeed any online mention of this individual. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources are found. One ref is self-published 2-page article, another is a copy of Wikipedia article and cites Wikipedia as a source; the rest do not mention the person. utcursch | talk 01:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although there's a valid potential claim of notability here, none of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines can ever be passed just by asserting a claim of notability if the quality of reliable sourcing available to support the claim isn't there. Sometimes it's just WP:TOOSOON. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if better sources ever start panning out. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 10 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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Derby Dolls[edit]

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

This page should be deleted. It's a small organization which exists in isolation. It's primary membership does not exceed two-dozen people, and the organization appears to have no permanence to speak of. I put forward that it is the equivalent of a local band or podcast. I know of several bands and podcasts which have larger audiences (in the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands), but do not qualify for inclusion. An organization with a following smaller than those unqualified examples, cannot claim to be qualified for inclusion.

California State fictitious name filings (also known as doing-business-as or "DBA") and LLC Incorporation records show a transient existence. The California State Board of Equalization shows that sellers permits and other filings made by or for this organization are not in good standing. Meaning that if it is still operating, it is not complying fully with the law. This indicates that the organization is not mature enough, or is so small that it cannot properly file it's paperwork.

It derives its authority by citing a larger "league," the membership of which is comprised, in large part, of only itself. It's the majority body of the body that granted it legitimacy.

The references are not industry trade publications. In many cases they are magazines with no physical distribution, or ad supported print publications freely distributed in an attempt to increase ad circulation. One reference is from an LBGT magazine ("San Diego Gay and Lesbian News"), which is not a respectable authority in this case. Another source appears to be the San Diego Union-Tribune, a local print publication. However, a closer inspection shows that the article cited was an online-only review, in the Arts & Entertainment section, of an independent movie, which was made by the Derby Dolls, for the Derby Dolls. The article is similar to a native ad, and was published in a section equivalent to the New York Time's "blogger" section (that is to say, with less credibility than the opinion or editorial sections). In any case, an article about an independent movie, who's author does not hold the Derby Dolls up as an authority on the sport, can not count as a respectable authority on Roller Derby or sports.

The remaining online sources can not automatically count as relevant to this discussion either. They should be at best considered neutral. Many of them are broken, or from the same author, or the same publication. Many of the publications cannot be held up as relevant or credible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailing californium (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2015

—

The San Diego Derby Dolls are a significantly well known entity in roller derby both on the banked and flat track with over 6700 subscribers to their YouTube training page^[3] and references in several print trade magazines such as Five on Five, Blood and Thunder, and Lead Jammer Magazine. These statements of fact counter the statements made in the request for deletion.Amy "Bitches Bruze" Moore (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd declined the speedy because of the sources. They're not slam bang great, but the thing about speedies is that the article only has to give a vague assertion of notability and having coverage from a major newspaper would accomplish this, as did the film. The other sites aren't great, but one could argue that they sort of assert notability as well. However that wasn't really what I was looking at when I declined the speedy - it was almost solely this source that I based that decision on. This doesn't guarantee that either are enough in and of themselves to assert overall notability, but the threshold for passing speedy criteria is insanely low. If there's a good chance that something could be overturned at DRV then it's always better to take it to AfD where it can get a more official consensus, as this would be less time consuming whether it may seem like it or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I let WIR know about this since it falls under their banner and they don't (to my knowledge) have a deletion sorting list like the sports WP does. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 6 December 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 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that Sailing californium is Forum Shopping in their vendetta against this organization; funny how they have been an editor on Wikipedia for less than 24 hours and have made two attempts now at getting this article deleted, and no edits unrelated to the subject. The nom's suspicious editing patterns aside, the article could use some improvements and additions - as opposed to the absolute whitewashing the nom proposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoedmyron (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 December 2015‎

While it's true that this is my first action as an editor, you cannot discriminate based on that. If everyone's first action was immediately rejected purely because it was their first, nobody would ever have a second. Sailing_californium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailing californium (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding YouTube: Wikipedia's published guidelines do not seem to indicate that YouTube subscriber counts may be cited to bolster notoriety. They seem to suggest social media should be disregarded. If no supporting guidelines can be found, the YouTube subscriber count will have to be disregarded for the purposes of this conversation.Sailing_californium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailing californium (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding vested interests: Although difficult to handle or parse, it's important to recognize that some participants in this conversation have already identified themselves as participants in the league which forms the subject of this article. Valid supporting arguments from these participants should not be disregarded, but passionate pleas, emotional defenses, or unsupported votes in favor of inclusion, must not be accepted. Of course the people who gain notoriety, legitimacy, or some form of "fame" from this page, would enthusiastically support it's inclusion in Wikipedia, as doing so lends legitimacy to their organization, and themselves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailing californium (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that do you mean that they're a member of the SDDD or that they're fans (or participate in) roller derby as a whole? If they're part of the team then that would pose a COI, but if they just participate in or follow roller derby as a whole, then that wouldn't really pose a COI. One can participate on other teams but still be able to neutrally participate with an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, where exactly do you think "some participants in this conversation have already identified themselves as participants in the league which forms the subject of this article"? I, for one, live in Canada, and have never been to San Diego in my life, for example. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my rundown of the sources. I have no firm opinion on notability at this point in time.

Sources
KPBS. This is a PBS station. These stations are held to a pretty strict editorial standard, so it would be considered a RS. The article goes into some depth about the group and was written by a staff reporter. Now the big thing about it is that it's local, though. San Diego Union Tribune. This is a major newspaper and the coverage is quite lengthy. It'd be considered a RS, however like the PBS it's local so that does put a bit of a damper on things. However since this is a major paper that does give it some weight that a smaller paper would not. Whether this is Internet only is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to major news outlets. North Coast Journal. This one is a little brief and one that I think I added to the article, mostly to serve as a basic trivial source. San Diego Gay and Lesbian News. This one is iffy. It was written by a staff reporter, which is good, but it'd be something I'd run through RS/N first. Now what is interesting about it is that this asserts that the SDDD is a national champion. If they won a major tournament on the national level then that would be enough by itself to establish notability. I'm not hugely familiar with NSPORT, but I do know that winning major, national championships is almost always enough to pass GNG. Now it just depends on which one they won, since I'm sure that there are many. SDUT. This one is insanely brief, to where I'd really only consider it to be a trivial source. Derby News Network. This is a dead link. They had a staff, so that counts in its favor, but I'd still have to run this through RS/N since they did take contributions from random people. That's not always a deal breaker, but it can be sometimes depending on how much editing they do and how well known they are as a RS to other places. Offhand it's probably not usable for Wikipedia's purposes, though. RD Coalition of Leagues. This is a primary source so it can't really show notability. Being the founding members of a major coalition can make it more likely that the group will be covered, but it's not a guarantee.

Sources

KPBS. This is a PBS station. These stations are held to a pretty strict editorial standard, so it would be considered a RS. The article goes into some depth about the group and was written by a staff reporter. Now the big thing about it is that it's local, though.
San Diego Union Tribune. This is a major newspaper and the coverage is quite lengthy. It'd be considered a RS, however like the PBS it's local so that does put a bit of a damper on things. However since this is a major paper that does give it some weight that a smaller paper would not. Whether this is Internet only is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to major news outlets.
North Coast Journal. This one is a little brief and one that I think I added to the article, mostly to serve as a basic trivial source.
San Diego Gay and Lesbian News. This one is iffy. It was written by a staff reporter, which is good, but it'd be something I'd run through RS/N first. Now what is interesting about it is that this asserts that the SDDD is a national champion. If they won a major tournament on the national level then that would be enough by itself to establish notability. I'm not hugely familiar with NSPORT, but I do know that winning major, national championships is almost always enough to pass GNG. Now it just depends on which one they won, since I'm sure that there are many.
SDUT. This one is insanely brief, to where I'd really only consider it to be a trivial source.
Derby News Network. This is a dead link. They had a staff, so that counts in its favor, but I'd still have to run this through RS/N since they did take contributions from random people. That's not always a deal breaker, but it can be sometimes depending on how much editing they do and how well known they are as a RS to other places. Offhand it's probably not usable for Wikipedia's purposes, though.
RD Coalition of Leagues. This is a primary source so it can't really show notability. Being the founding members of a major coalition can make it more likely that the group will be covered, but it's not a guarantee.

Now the problem here is that pretty much the only guaranteed usable coverage is local, which doesn't really help an awful lot. I do see where they're mentioned quite a bit in various places, but it's usually trivial. Now a viable option here would be to merge this into the founder's article. I think that there could probably be enough notability to firmly show notability for Bonnie and the SDDD, so that's always something to take into consideration. Still, I'll try looking for more and I'll stop in to ask the sports WikiProject if they know about the roller derby tournaments. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

FWIW, I've fixed the DNN link; they updated their main URL at some point without a redirect. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The San Diego Union-Tribune is a major newspaper, and its article is not a movie review, but about the team itself. (Whip It is also not "an independent movie, which was made by the Derby Dolls, for the Derby Dolls". It had a budget of $15 million and AFAIK, was not about or particularly inspired by the Derby Dolls anyway, just a fictional women's roller derby team, so that has no real bearing on this discussion.) There are a fair number of less reliable/second tier sources (here's another[21]), just enough to push it over the notability bar IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as discussed above, there are a variety of decent sources on the league already in the article; the San Diego Union-Tribune one demonstrates some notability, and the other ensure that the information is verifiable. There may well be some other good sources; I'll have hunt around. Warofdreams talk 11:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article's reliable sources are independent, with a sufficiently broad audience and depth of coverage for this to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The San Diego Derby Dolls were just featured on the nationally-broadcast CNN program Somebody's Gotta Do It in October.[22] Aside from the significant coverage in the Union Tribune and KPBS sources, there are additional sources not currently used in the article such as the Texas Law Review. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 18:55, 9 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 4K monitors, TVs and projectors[edit]

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

This list is uselessly outdated, it cannot be reasonably updated because then it would fail WP:Notability as this tech is becoming way too common. Most of the displays listed here are the very earliest ones that cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. This sort of list is appropriate for a tech in its nascence only. A mention of a few of the notable firsts could be made. B137 (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This same kind of list but for 8K resolution devices may be appropriate. More modest 4K devices have dropped comfortably below the $500 point, 4K make up at least have the TVs in Best Buy and similar stores these days. Just for history's sake, this page could be moved to the 8K title, as they are extraordinary and somewhat notable at this point. Currently this is the list of very limited 8K displays, cameras as well are thus far largely prototypical and discussed earlier in the article. B137 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A week of no activity and I may opt for the move option, to preserve the history of early 4K devices during the time they were notable but massively redoing the article of course to cover 8K, perhaps with a section talking about the similar production history of 4K from ~2010-2013. In 2014 and 2015 they broke through the $1000 and $500 barriers, respectively. B137 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This type of list is never appropriate. This is essentially a catalog or directory, and is not encyclopedic content. Pburka (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Black Friday sales just announced 4K TVs 60" plus will be going for under $1000, that is as cheap as regular 1080p TVs, and these aren't grey market knockoffs. Early adopters of 4K have got to be kicking themselves in the head. Though I think the list should be moved to 8K, that is still especial tech, and I think the article should be geared more high-end and commercial. And there actually is one area where 4K has been the slowest, ironically with projectors, which are capable to be the largest displays by far, and it has left retailers to bash 4K since there are only about five 4K projectors to market for the past two years, and they are still generally five figures. It has the implication that the projection market is dying despite some significant advantages, due to the convenience of an all-in-one panel. B137 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of 4K monitors, TVs and projectors is a useful addition to the primary article which references it, 4K resolution. The list was split off from (out of) the 4K resolution article. This list grew organically in 4K resolution as more displays became available and multiple people added each particular monitor which they had seen, or were interested in. In my opinion, it is easier to have a list such as this rather than trying to have only a few examples in an article (people will continuously add the particular device they are interested in to any such list; trying to keep it pruned generates conflicts between editors and is considerably more work than having the list). At the time it was split off, it was clear the list was growing large enough such that it was distracting from the content of "4K resolution". As described in WP:SPLITLIST, the list was split off into its own set index article. The List of 4K video recording devices was also split out of the "4K resolution" article at the same time.

8K devices:

The argument that 8K devices have become where the technology curve is peaking at this time is not a valid argument that a list of 4K devices should be deleted. It is an argument that a list of 8K devices may be appropriate at some time. However, my opinion is that the list of such devices in the 8K_resolution article has not yet grown to the size which would justify splitting it off from that article. In the future, it almost certainly will grow to the point where splitting the list of 8K devices into one, or more, set index articles will be appropriate.

Outdated:

The list being outdated is not a valid reason for deletion. It is a valid reason for editing the list and updating it. To quote DGG from an AfD discussion on very similar list of technology which has moved to be more common (mobile phones with WVGA display): "Outdated is irrelevant to notability . WP is an encyclopedia, and keeps historical information. This was of key importance a few years ago, and we should keep the record."

— Makyen (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. outdated is a reason for updating, not deletion. We have many such lists of notable types of product. Whether the list should be divided is a question to be decided on the talk page, not here. I note that the need for information for customers on Black Friday is irrelevant to whether we should keep this list. We're not a consumer's guide--if we were, we would keep only current models. We're an encyclopedia, and a permanent record. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While 4K televisions are a notable product category, what makes this list notable? There's no indication that any of the individual models are notable, nor is there any claim that the list itself is notable, nor is this an effective navigational aid. This is simple a (formerly exhaustive) directory of consumer products. Pburka (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me point out that two years ago the number of devices was at 150, that was right before the prices started bombing. http://bgr.com/2014/01/06/ultra-hd-tv-announcements-ces-2014/ I couldn't find a more recent number for total devices but I think that itself suffices to say they are numerous and insignificant enough to no longer tally. My guess is that it is well into the thousands now between all the tvs and computer monitors and even cell phone cameras that now do 4k. Right now the "list" probably has about 15% of applicable devices. B137 (talk) 19:48, 26 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! 15:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move is my official vote, sorry for so many comments. Even though o started the AfD, I would like to move to preserve the history. B137 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move where? If you mean 8K, then I'd like to see a rationale for why such a list would be notable. Pburka (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(This list used to be helpful.)

Now, it is a relic with totally out of date prices. Also, I should say the reason why I think that lists LIKE this one are very useful content. I have come across this list many times in search of a hard-to-find combination of factors: 4k, displayport, and a reasonable price tag. Lists like this one, when up to date and espeically when comparing rare/new products are very useful to Wikipedia's audience, and for one, I'd miss them. I second the comment about the list of 8k devices being more appropriate now, but bemoan the fact that no manufacturer has made a display that can serve equally well as a TV and a PC monitor :D. Faddat (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists of this nature are out of date the moment they are created, and trying to keep it up to date is hopeless as new models get released frequently. WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the arguments above, this is so common a charateristic of products now that making lists about it is not compatible with WP:IINFO. Sandstein 10:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The nominator is being very conflicting, first you create an AfD and now you propose we move the article into a page that doesn't exist, essentially recreating this list only for 8K products. That makes zero sense as we are talking about this article. Any arguments to keep are Wikipedia:ITSUSEFULL or Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tend to consider these this sort of feature-based product list to fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a product catalog and WP:NTEMP as a list that's only relevant (or WP:USEFUL) for the lifespan of the product and afterwards fall into WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a collection of device specs that hold little-to-no encyclopedic value (or usefulness, except to a rare few -- but that's why there are specialist sites and databases). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 13 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 no consensus. No discussion since the third relist. Keep and delete !votes bring up good points, but there's no clear consensus at this time. Past two relisters appear to agree that the discussion was verging on no consensus before relisting and consensus has not developed since. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helion Venture Partners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no evidence of notability. A list of a companies investments is not an encycopedia article. The references, as would be expected,are mere notices about those investments, not substantial sources about the firm. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging past users RadioFan, Trivialist and Randykitty. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I believe there are enough RS. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient reliable sources to meet notability criteria RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have never kept funds' articles based on their investments, for which notability is not inherited anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient reliable sources and wikipedia is relied upon by Indian users to find resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.160.178 (talk) 19:16, 12 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! 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, sources are passing mentions or not reliable 73.138.114.150 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM by single-purpose account. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. Subject is not notable. Citobun (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Russell, Jon (2015-04-16). "Helion Venture Partners Raises New $300M Fund For Startups In India". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  The article notes:
  
  There’s another new startup fountain in town in India, after Helion Venture Partners announced its fourth fund worth $300 million.
  Helion is the latest in a flurry of firms to raise money for investments in fast-growing India. ...
  With its new fund, Helion — which includes Housing.com, TaxiForSure, and Komli among its portfolio — is again targeting early to mid stage tech startups in India. Typical investments will range from $1 million to $10 million, and the fund is expected to last for three to four years, according to Helion co-founder Sanjeev Aggarwal.
  ...
  Helion, which was founded in 2009, will put around three-quarters of the fund towards startups that are helping digitize the national economy, for example those involved in retail, travel, insurance and, loans, Aggarwal said. The remainder will be set aside for Indian companies with the potential to do business globally, for example analytics, enterprise software and other “next generation outsourcing businesses.”
2. KJ, Shashidhar (2015-04-23). "Helion Venture Partners raises $300 mn to invest in early, mid startups in India". MediaNama. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Helion’s recent investments
  – In February Helion invested Rs 30 crore Hyper local products discovery platform Wooplr. The funds will be used for hiring and expanding Wooplr’s presence in the country.
  – Helion also participated in a $100 million funding round for e-commerce site ShopClues in January. In March 2013, ShopClues had raised $10 million from Helion Venture Partners, Nexus Partners and Netprice.com CEO Teruhide Sato
  – Personalised home furnishings provider Livspace raised $4.6 million in a series A round of funding led by Helion Venture Partners and Bessemer Venture Partners in December 2014.
  – In September 2014, Bangalore-based online grocery retailer BigBasket has raised Rs 200 crore investment in a round led by Helion Ventures and Zodius Capital and participation from existing investors Ascent Capital and LionRock Capital.
  – Online recruitment platform TalentPad in October raised an undisclosed amount of investment from Helion Ventures.
3. Gupta, Bhawna (2015-04-17). "Helion on road to raise $300M in tech-focused VC fund; to back up to 25 Indian startups". VCCircle. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Helion Venture Partners, an early-to-mid-stage venture capital firm, is raising $300 million (Rs 1,900 crore) for its fourth fund Helion Venture Fund IV, a company spokesperson told VCCircle.
  The VC firm is still on the road to raise funds and is in talks with both new and existing offshore investors. The average ticket size of the investment from the new fund will be in the $1-10 million bracket, much like its previous funds.
  It expects to back 20-25 companies from the new fund and will focus on technology and tech-powered firms only. In the past, the firm has backed a few non-tech consumer services firms such as salon chain YLG and restaurant chain Mast Kalandar.
  ...
  Founded in 2006, the VC firm currently manages $605 million across three funds. It has backed names like MakeMyTrip, Pubmatic, TaxiForSure and RedBus, some of which it has exited.
  The firm is currently led by two senior managing directors Ashish Gupta and Sanjeev Aggarwal. Last year another co-founder and senior managing director Kanwaljit Singh had quit the firm.
4. Narasimhan, T E (2015-01-15). "Helion Venture Partners to float fourth fund". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Helion had launched its first fund, of $140 million, in 2006. This was followed by a $210-million fund in 2008 and a third one of $255 million in 2012.
  ...
  While the first fund was completely IT focused, 90 per cent of the second was also deployed with a focus on technology so was the third fund, though it invested in other sectors as well, such as green tech (Azure Power), education (GTT, Attano, Vienova), financial services (NetAmbit, Shubham), health care (Eye Q, LifeCell), and IT-enabled real estate plays. Srikanth and Goyal said the fourth fund would not change its focus on IT and related segments.
  ...
  Since its inception in 2006, Helion has invested in about 50 companies in various sectors including consumer tech, enterprise tech (business and infra), and technology-enabled services, among others.
5. Gooptu, Biswarup (2012-08-31). "Helion Venture Partners in talks to sell stake in Amba Research". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Helion Venture Partners, India's largest domestic venture capital firm with assets of $605 million under management, is in talks to sell its stake in investment research outsourcing firm Amba Research.
6. Nair, Radhika P (2012-03-22). "Helion Venture Partners closes $255 million fund". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Mauritius registered early to mid stage India focused fund, Helion Venture Partners has closed a $255 million fund, said Sanjeev Aggarwal, Senior Managing Director, Helion Advisors. This is Helion's third fund.
  Helion, who have invested in companies like Make My Trip, Komli Media, redBus and SMS Gupshup, had raised a $140 million fund in 2006 and a $210 million fund in 2008. The first two funds are almost fully invested, the venture firm said.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Helion Venture Partners to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Economic Times, Helion Venture Partners in 2012 was "India's largest domestic venture capital firm with assets of $605 million under management".
In March 2012, the firm received significant coverage in The Economic Times for closing a $255 million fund. In August 2012, it received coverage during talks to sell its stake in Amba Research.
In 2015, the firm received significant coverage about its fourth fund from TechCrunch, MediaNama, VCCircle, and Business Standard. The sustained coverage demonstrates that Helion Venture Partners passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and for sure this is SPAM. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photo Researchers also - same case. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "same case"? The two articles have no overlapping editors. The only similarity is that I participated in both discussions.
Other than the portfolio list, the only text in the article is:
Helion Ventures Partners is an Indian focused venture fund based in Mauritius. It manages US $600M and invests in early to mid-stage companies in India in sectors such as Outsourcing, Internet, Mobile, Technology Products, Retail, Education and Financial Services. Helion is advised by a team of India based advisors with offices in Bangalore and Gurgaon. The advisors help the fund to select companies to invest in. And post investment the advisors work with the companies in areas such as finance, Human Resources, technology, marketing and operations.
How is this spam? This is neutrally written content.
Cunard (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company. Eden's Apple (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — Eden's Apple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The company has received significant coverage in TechCrunch, MediaNama, VCCircle, Business Standard, and The Economic Times.
A 2012 article in The Economic Times called it "India's largest domestic venture capital firm with assets of $605 million under management". This clearly establishes that Helion Venture Partners is notable.
Cunard (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per quite a few references following a brief Google search. However, the article should be restructured and a minor nuking done (if I may) to make the article encyclopedic. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a close call, because some coverage does exist, as shown by the keep votes above. However, after looking through these, it seems to me that they are lists of investments, rather than substantive coverage of the company itself, and therefore do not count towards the substantive coverage needed to meet GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is needs to be rewritten so badly I think it's affecting judgement of the article itself which is why I'm staying neutral here. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 05:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MurderByDeadcopy (talk · contribs), I don't think the article needed to be rewritten because it was neutrally written, but I have rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't referring to the POV of the article so much as my own POV when reading said article, however, you did actually improve the article enough to solve my initial poor reaction to the article. Kudos! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. As long as no speedy deletion criteria apply, I think the article's quality should not be a factor in determining whether the article should be kept per Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems, and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be a weak keep, however, since I was on the fence and some of that had to do with the article lacking an encyclopedic structuring (until Cunard gave the article a better balance) I've decided to go with keep. Also, I hate being on the fence about anything!!! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let us try one more week before it gets closed as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard and I seem to have a basic disagreement, but I think it can be resolved. As I see it, there are many reasons for deletion besides notability. Blatant advertising is a speedy criterion--and not-blatent advertising is a violation of WP:NOT, and should therefore be deleted. Yes, it is possible to fix it: just as its possible to fix an article that's a copyvio, by rewriting it. But in both cases, if it isn't fixed, it must be removed.

The question now is 1)whether it is sufficiently fixed. I think it probably is, for Cunard does not what a proper article should be & I do not see myself questioning the work of an editor of his experience and skill. . and 2) whether the references actually do show notability. I continue to think they do not. Articles just specifying funding are mere announcements, not coverage in depth. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says:
Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.
My rewrite of the article has proven that Helion Venture Partners has received "deep coverage" that is far beyond "Articles just specifying funding are mere announcements".
I discuss the company's history, its founders, its four funds, the sectors it focuses on, and its exit strategy for three of the companies it invested in.
Cunard (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even after the extensive work by Cunard, their are substantive disagreements on policy points. Was going to "No Consensus", but a third relisting, especially since this is a 2nd nom, couldn't hurt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 6 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 no consensus Argument on both side have some merit. Some in favor of deletion suggest OR, those in favor on inclusion suggested the concept has been studied extensively. Redirect/Merge are also viable there is no bias against that if sources are not added. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 06:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessive love[edit]

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

The article is discursive without any clear subject, and appears mostly to be some combination of WP:SYN and a WP:COATRACK to hang other things on.

It starts with the words "Obsessive love is a hypothetical state", but then fails to give any real information about what this hypothesized state might be, or who might have proposed this hypothesis.
Mentions mental illness, but does not use WP:MEDRS sources.
Lists a lengthy bibliography, but is entirely unferenced except just one mention of one author, without specifying a work, or a page reference or other more detailed citation.
At a quick glance, the bibliography appears to be made up mostly of popular-audience self-help books.

I've taken a look at trimming it, but found that if all the questionable sentences were to be eliminated, essentially nothing would be left. I'm not sure quite what should be done with this, but in its current state, I believe deletion would be an improvement, and I can't see any better options at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-non-MEDRS sources is not a valid reason to delete an article. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 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 03:26, 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 02:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since many similar terms have their own articles, such as conjugal love and unrequited love. However, this article does need huge improvements in sourcing, which I can assist with doing once this discussion is cleared and if it does not get deleted. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 02:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smileguy91: - I don't have a strong opinion at this point, but please note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: - The essay does have a point; however, let me rephrase my earlier reasoning. I intended my argument as more on the point that the specific subject isn't already covered in any other article, and the deletion of this article would result in a hole in the coverage of the subject of love in general. Thanks very much for pointing that out though. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 05:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with infatuation or limerence, which are much the same topic which is clearly notable as entire books are written about it. Determining the best title and structure for this is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion because AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively, if at all, and Redirect to infatuation, which looks to be talking about a similar subject. I'm sure there are small differences, but I'm not confident this article could be salvaged as it is and the distinctions are probably not enough to justify a stand-alone article. In addition to books that use the term, there need to be books that use the term in a way that's distinct from topics we cover under different names. At best this is WP:TNT as it purports far too much psychology without using books that meet our standards for content about health/mental health. It even makes arguments like "Although not categorized specifically under any specific mental diagnosis by the DSM IV, some people argue that obsessive love is considered to be a mental illness similar to "attachment disorder, borderline personality disorder, and erotomania". ??? That someone wrote that in a book does not mean we should be including it here. Especially when it's as horribly defined and explained as it is, that's problematic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having been written about for centuries, it's a distinct topic and there are good references. Wgat the article needs is expansion. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a start class article that is referenced differently than other articles. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like 100% WP:OR, with sources like that on a different subject. I rarely vote "delete", but that is the one. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and if desired by editors merge with, Infatuation. Seems to be the same topic, see WP:CFORK. Sandstein 10:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments for both keep and merge are compelling, would benefit from more input. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to infatuation. -- The Anome (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to infatuation.--Penbat (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect probably, but the current description is so vague that I can't tell if it should redirect to infatuation, limerence, Relationship obsessive–compulsive disorder (ROCD) or erotomania (all of which need major work btw). I just deleted a sentence on Obsessive love that said it should be "differentiated from relationship obsessive–compulsive disorder (ROCD) that commonly includes doubts regarding one's own feelings towards an intimate partner, preoccupation with the partner’s feelings towards oneself, doubts about the rightness of the relationship and preoccupation with the perceived flaws of the partner," because that was an inaccurate and unsourced definition of ROCD. It looks like it was based off the Wikipedia article ROCD which gives an equally poor, unsourced definition of ROCD. ROCD is just regular OCD where the intrusive thoughts (obsessions) have a relationship-oriented theme. I think that might be where Obsessive love fits best. It looks like there have been multiple unsuccessful attempts made to adequately source this article. I wasn't able to find anything that meets WP:MEDRS in my own search, which would be needed for the article's current tone. It seems to me that redirecting it makes sense since it's doubtful it can stand on its own. I'm also fine with deleting it completely. Permstrump (talk) 08:45, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.F.A. Project[edit]

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

non notable opensource software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. References given are either to directory entries, primary sources, from unreliable sources or trivial coverage. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon at best and draft and userfy if needed later. Notifying tagger Dat GuyWiki in case they have any comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Golden rule. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:14, 8 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of assassination attempts by the Forghan group[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and the related article on the Forghan group was deleted in June 2015. Created by a blocked editor (Munifi3nt was a sockpuppet of Srahmadi). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was also edited by *@Rhumidian:, who I'm notifying. Let's see if he or she feels strongly about preserving the list, in spite of its origins. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis article was created by accounts linked to Iran. I believe that the article is predominantly biased.Unless we can fins accurate and reliable sources now then i advise that the article be deleted under AFD:Unsourced.Rhumidian (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete > even one of these assassination was really had happened, creator or editor of this lists must or could add even one source for it, but unfortunality did not happened. So this article doesn't have value to keep itWorld Cup 2010 (talk) 04:54, 7 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 as a hoax. — ξ ^xplicit 04:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Phoenix concert tours[edit]

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

Not noteable Rathfelder (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - confused by this, it's a list of tours, not by the notable French group but by a Korean boy band of the same name who don't have their own Wikipedia entry? If they don't have an entry how did a list of their tours end up on here? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.Rathfelder (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, entirely unsourced? I'll go for delete unless someone can make a good case for this existing at all. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The reason this article is unsourced and no band page exists is because I honestly don't think this group is real. There is absolutely zero Korean news on the group or anything about these concerts. Also, In my opinion the special guest performers is not possible. None of those people would have performed at another company's, boy group's, concert. And finally none of the concert venues list this group as having performed there during the times given. Peachywink (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax. I'm not seeing any mention of this so-called boy band. "The Amazing of Phoenix Tour"? Sounds pretty "Phoeni" to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 8 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Braintree Athletic Complex[edit]

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

NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL. There was some local contentiousnous on where to construct a new high school athletic complex? So? John from Idegon (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a private sports venue they're trying to built on their land, not really a "high school athletic complex." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't received significant coverage outside of the local newspaper. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:19, 8 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 somewhere. Where to may need further discussion, but I suspect it's OK if somebody just goes ahead with any one of the various variants proposed. Sandstein 18:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birch Lake State Recreation Site[edit]

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

I'm not sure we should have an article on every SRS/SRA in Alaska, and in fact I mean to propose de-linking a great many of the redlinks at the List of Alaska state parks page. There are dozens of these, and many of them are not notable. I've been to this place, it's basically a lakefront parking lot for RVs. The lake, which is not the property of the park system, is obviously the reason this exists but this is just a tiny campground and a boat launch. If it was privately owned there would be no question it was not notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Not that I mind that much, but could you explain why you think this belongs on that delsort list? I am not aware of any notable environmental issues involving this tiny park. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SILENCE, I have removed it from that list as there is no apparent reason for listing there and the user who added it has not replied despite being otherwise active. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect, but to where? – There are several likely targets:
- The lake itself – This recreation area abuts another recreation area operated by the U.S. Air Force for military affiliates. Also, along the spot where the Richardson Highway bends around the lake, is a townsite platted by the BLM or predecessor entity. This is enough to suggest that an article on the lake would help us to achieve our gazetteer function, though not by much. As far as military recreation facilities in Alaska go, Birch Lake is nowhere near as prominent as the Eielson or Wainwright ski hills, or for that matter, Seward Resort, none of which we really cover. The townsite has never had more than a small handful of houses. Which leads us to the next alternative...
- The Harding-Birch Lakes, Alaska CDP – Between the namesake lakes, Lost Lake and the area along the Salcha River upstream of easy road access, there is absolutely something notable to be said about this area as a recreational destination. However, the substantial history of Harding Lake among the well-to-do citizens of Fairbanks (or prior Native history when it was known as Salchaket Lake) notwithstanding, the uninitiated and those who contend that CDPs are strictly arbitrary inventions of the Census Bureau are more likely to view this area as a part of Salcha than as a separate community. This should be evident by the fact that "It is part of the 'Fairbanks, Alaska Metropolitan Statistical Area'" garners greater mention in the article than the titular lakes.
- The state parks article – I'll address any suggestions for improvements to that article in that discussion. This should be an obvious potential target and not require further elaboration. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we had an article on the lake, I'd be perfectly happy with a redirect and a small section on this there, as it s obviously the reason this SRS exists. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess on why the SRS exists is that the feds held title to lands around the lake, and a certain portion of that was ceded to the state to satisfy statehood act obligations, or more specifically that the SRS was originally part of the much larger military facility next door and the land was turned over to the state after they deemed it surplus to their needs. I just acquired a copy of Alaska's Parklands — The Complete Guide by Nancy Lange Simmerman, published by The Mountaineers in 1983. I haven't found any mention of this particular facility in the book, and don't specifically remember it from any number of long-ago visits to the military facility, so it's also probably too new to have any history worth mentioning. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is immediately adjacent to it on the same access road, so that makes sense. We found that out because we were looking for a place to camp, and couldn't believe we'd really seen the whole place so we tried going further up the road but right away ran into gates and so on for the military rec facility. We moved on to Harding Lake, which has a much larger, nicer campground and boat launch.. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a new article Lakes of Fairbanks North Star Borough. There are a bunch of Birch Lakes in Alaska. This one and Harding Lake are in the Tanana River basin, however neither is particularly interesting. There's a map and fisheries record, but there's a lot of stocked waters in the Fairbanks area alone, so it's not clear that an individual article is really warranted. There is enough information, however, to make one overarching article with linkages as appropriate to Tanana Valley, Tanana Valley, Eielson Air Force Base, Tanana Valley State Forest etc.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 15:43, 12 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. If anyone wants to contest this deletion please post on my talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitous gaze[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Very stubby, has about 2 bits of information, and should quite easily be worked into the Trompe-l'œil article (which I would've done but as an outsider I don't feel i can do this appropriately). Don't know what notability criteria this would be assessed against, but would've thought if it was a sufficiently important aspect of art, there'd be lots written about it. Rayman60 (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 22 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 20:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:57, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Steeds[edit]

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

Questionably independently notable and improvable as the best I found was only this, this, this and this and I'm also nominating as I'm not sure whether there's a keepable separate article here or he should simply be moved to the TV show's article. Notifying past users Ukexpat, Twinsday and also DGG who lists to be notified. SwisterTwister talk 03:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. finalist who never actually won anything; presumably not notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 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 14:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:54, 6 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) clpo13_(talk) 17:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Buchman[edit]

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

Seemingly questionable notable and improvable music biography as the best I found was only this, this and this. Notifying past users Mentifisto and J04n and also DGG who lists to be notified and may have some classical music insight.. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be quite important as one of the first female principal brass players with an American orchestra. Long LA Times profile from 1988[23]. One book reference already cited in article too.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:50, 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 14:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weak claim to notability. Subject is obviously a competent musician, but the article mostly drops names and has little in the way of strong sources we require for BLPs. Agricola44 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: The LA Times story and the small book mention cited above as well as discussion of her achievement in this encyclopedia article [24], on Minnesota public radio [25] are sufficient for the GNG (especially considering that many sources from the time of her achievement would not normally be found online). Principal musicians at major orchestras have generally been found to be notable at AfD. San Diego Symphony is just below that bar, but the coverage for her particular glass ceiling breaking is beyond that of musicians at similar institutions. Her achievements at Hamilton College are not enough for WP:PROF, but only one notability guideline needs to be passed. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think she's worth keeping. I'm going to add the sources when I can tonight. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:54, 6 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 redirect to Our Lady's Rosary Makers. Due to low participation, I'm closing this with no prejudice against recreation. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Mattingly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A redirect to Our Lady's Rosary Makers is probably the best option. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect Too thin of an arc for notability by himself, although certainly the organization he founded is notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not enough in depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semtex Girls[edit]

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

The origin of this article is questionable and so is its notability. The sources state that singer Madonna "'uses the name for pure promotional purposes. We can't really prove that we suffer a loss from that". I find that the only content that I can find all over internet is that Madonna said that she has a limited company called Semtex Girls and that Explosia, who owns the explosive Semtex sued her. I find that this does not stand on its own as an independent article and should be deleted. Those two content can easily be added to Madonna. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found no convincingly better coverage aside from trivial coverage at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 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} 13:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails to meet notability and there are many claims that have ((citation needed)). Also, sources like Internet Movie Database are not reliable. GagaNutella^talk 16:00, 9 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's a lot of discussion here, but it boils down to near unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients[edit]

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

I found this death watch list. The intro is covered at Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and all the recipients are covered in alphabetical lists like List_of_Knight's_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients_(A). Most of them seem to have at least a individual stub article. Given that all the men on the list are (or would be if there are indeed alive) in their 90's or 100+ it is essentially going to disappear as a list. If you look at the talk page and the article there is considerable doubt that the men listed are in fact living. The only other info here is who was the last to die under various filters, which goes against the title of the article. I suggest full out deletion as the info is all better presented elsewhere. If there is a desire to track missing or future death dates for the articles, this can be done on the award's talk page. Legacypac (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree to the reasoning MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding notice - I have notified the WikiProjects for Military History, Military Decorations, and Germany of this pending discussion at the main talk pages for those projects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query - @Legacypac: Are 100% of the supposedly still-living recipients of the Knight's Cross also listed in the alphabetical lists for the decoration? If this list is deleted, will any non-redundant content be lost? This seems to be a core issue here. If no non-redundant content would be lost, I expect that I will be able to support deletion for the reasons stated in your rationale -- barring any other issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By this reckoning you'll also have to delete every other List of last living people, including the List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans, and Surviving U.S. veterans of World War II. Hannibalcaesar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You stumbled upon this article and assumed that it's inaccurate, when in fact most of these men are indeed alive. Rudolf von Ribbentrop was just in Moscow presenting his memoirs. Hannibalcaesar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This article is frequently updated. Same with the list of living Medal of Honor recipients, List of surviving veterans of World War II, List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War, etc. What evidence do you have that this list is inaccurate? I say keep it. Czolgolz (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a German WWII decoration. We are now 70 years from the end of that war. I suppose having survived the way by 70 years might be regarded as notable, but I am dubious. I am even more dubious of the WWII veterans article, which I suspect to be highly incomplete, in view of the size of British and Russian forces in WWII. I rather doubt that two years ago, that one contained my father, who was then alive and joined the Bedfordshire Yeomanry in 1938, serving through the whole war. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The surviving WWII veterans article is for 'notable' veterans (people who went to to achieve things in politics, art, science, sports, etc), though the 'notable' tag has long been debated.Czolgolz (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dirtlawyer1: Evidently all people that got this decoration are considered notable enough for an article because there are seperate pages for every letter of the alphabet with links to articles on the receiptiants. (The validity of them all being notable is not part of this debate). As far as I can tell the alphabetical lists are comprehensive, and based on the work of two main researchers. As for the Living List being inaccurate - the article itself says it is inaccuate, which makes sense given the age of the vets. To get off the living list requires some English speaking wikipedian to find a obit or other proof of death for a German person. Given many people's deaths are not publicized, variations in how names are used, language barrier, etc and that these men (if alive) are indeed very old, it follows the list of "Living" includes some not so living. Normally an encyclopia article deals with past events and once material is added it can stay. This is a list of future events with undefined dates - people's inevidable deaths. I have no opinion on the other "last of lists" at this time. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Legacypac. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So should we also delete list of living Medal of Honor recipients? They'll all die too one day, they're all listed elsewhere, and many of them are old and forgotten. I hate to say it, but there's a lot of American-centrism coming through here. Czolgolz (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Canadian, so there is no American centric thinking from me. There are several large differences. Prestige of the award and that one is obsolete vs the other continuing to be awarded.

There have been 3,512 Medals of Honor awarded since creation, with just less than half of them awarded for actions during the four years of the American Civil War.

During World War II 464 United States military personnel received the Medal of Honor, 266 of them posthumously." So that leave only 198 living men total to track after WWII.

In contrast "The total number of recipients of the Knight's Cross is 7,366" all during WWII. Evidently the Knights Cross is about 10 times less prestigious based on # of WWII awards, though it was the highest award available to all ranks in Nazi Germany.

The Medal of Honor continues to be awarded in current wars so there will be living recipients for a long time. It remains a very select award with very few given out. The Knights Cross last award was in 1945. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then could I put in a personal request? I really enjoy this article, I've been editing it for years, I use it for research, and it's not actually hurting anything. Could, as a personal favor, it not be deleted? Please? What harm is it doing? Czolgolz (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it might be useful for keeping track of death dates to update on the alpha lists. We could Userfy it as subpage of your userpage like User:Czolgolz/List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients where you can use it happily. Portions on who was the last holder in a category to die could go into Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross as a little table. Does that help? Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that does not really help. The main list of all recipients does not mention who is still living. As I do not speak German, it would be impossible for me to continue this research on my own (I rely on other wikipedians to update this article). So far as I can find, this is the only English language resource that still lists these veterans. As you mentioned, this list is going to vanish in a couple of years anyway. Maybe few people rely on this article. Maybe I'm the only one. But I do use it, and isn't that the point of an encyclopedia? If a television show can have individual articles for each episode and each character, can't we live this article of minor historical significance? Wikipedia has millions of articles, please don't take this one away from me. It's Christmas. Czolgolz (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get to decide now, but I take your point it is likely the only list in English and there is lots of stuff that is WAY more trivial on Wikipedia then these men. How about shifting the "last of but now dead" info over to the main article to trim it down (that does not fit the title anyway). Also if we can maybe cross reference the German article (if there is one) and update the list, I'll support keeping the article for you. Legacypac (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I surely, surely appreciate that. I'll get on those changes.Czolgolz (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've consolidated the living lists into List_of_Knight's_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients where you can carry on. There should be no need for the standalone article now right? This title can be a redirect to that one. Legacypac (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thank you! Czolgolz

Note to Closer The substantive parts of the article have been merged to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients which already has all the same background info about the metals. This can be redirected now to that article when this AfD is closed. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this works. The information derived from this list in its current form is uncited. The target list is featured, fully cited, diluting its quality. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer Legacypac's merger efforts have all been reverted.Czolgolz (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query Why is the merge being deleted and who is doing it without discussion? A delete and merge seems the best solution, and the new article can be reinforced by further work, cite addition, etc. Irondome (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be perfectly happy with a merger, but MisterBee1966 says it negatively affects the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients article.Czolgolz (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Misterbee1966 above. Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete support rationale of Legacypac. Support Merge undertaken so article is kept in some form so user Czolgolz can continue his work. Irondome (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the 'Last of' info is a really good fit in the 'List of recepients' article. In fact the subjects of the two articles overlap, so a merger is a good idea. i negotiate a solution with an editor with an attachment and long term interest in keeping things up to date and that is no good? Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me explain my reasoning for my recent reverting, first, we don’t have consensus yet, second, the added information is uncited. In general, I think the information could be moved, but it requires more work than just moving of text and tables. As an example:

Image	Current residence	Name	Birth date and age	Nationality	Force served	Notes
	Germany	Erich Rudorffer	1 November 1917 (age 106)	German	Luftwaffe	Highest scoring living fighter ace in the world. 222 victories including 78 Il2 Sturmovik in more than 1000 missions. He claimed 12 victories with the Me 262.

There is no reference, no indication what so ever for the statement that Rudorffer is "Highest scoring living fighter ace in the world. 222 victories including 78 Il2 Sturmovik in more than 1000 missions. He claimed 12 victories with the Me 262." Adding such verbiage to the target list, which is a featured list, needs to follow the WP:WIAFL criteria. May I suggest that the editors of this "List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients" first work on the quality of this content and then we revisit the decision whether we move or not. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. The Rudorffer baseline article is a bit toe - curling. Full of peacock and unsourced claims. I think the individual articles of all KC holders should be checked. Until then I suggest we put a hold on the whole deletion request. The individual articles seriously need revisting if this is a typical example. Chased down Croydon High Street? Me mum never told me about that Irondome (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the overall structure of the articles vs each other, not the validness of the content. All involved articles are just links to underlying articles on individual solders. Merging them will have no effect on the quality of the lists.Legacypac (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; I have created a few featured and military history A-class articles, lesson learned, any factual bit of information requires fully referenced citations. The information on this list is lacking references and inline citations. You can't move this uncited content to the featured target list without negatively impacting the quality of the target list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an interims solution could be to move the information to List of surviving veterans of World War II, which is also an uncited list. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. I believe those with existing wiki articles are already on that list.Czolgolz (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misterbee's compromise, is a good solution for the time being. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering the fact that there are almost no sources proving that all this recipients are still alive (and that is what claims the name of the list), I support the deletion of this article. The Internet forums, which I use for keeping the article more or less up to date, can not be seen as reliable, of course. --Sersou (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact they are still living is not part of notability and as such they are already in the appropriate listing of holders. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 13 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite son[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NAD. Favorite Son (disambiguation) page already links to the Wiktionary with pretty much the same information. Ceosad (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is more appropriate for a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:11, 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 03:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Favorite Son (disambiguation) - Per nom. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable, and the article has potential to be expanded beyond mere dictionary content. An example of a substantial discussion of the concept and history of such candidacies can be found in the CQ Press book Elections A to Z ([26] or [27]). -Arxiloxos (talk) 01:45, 26 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! 01:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A historically significant topic that passes WP:GNG, and the article can be expanded well beyond dictionary content. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "How 'Favorite Son' Politics Works". The Pittsburgh Press. January 12, 1928.
^ "Favorite Son Groups Will be Numerous at 1940 Convention of Democrats". The Day. August 4, 1939
^ "How Term 'Favorite Son' Got Started in Politics". The Free Lance-Star. January 30, 1960.
^ "Favorite Son Idea is Devised to Put State in Strong Position at Convention". Ocala Star-Banner. July 3, 1960.
^ "Smathers Gets Favorite Son Candidate Nod". Ocala Star-Banner. May 29, 1968.
^ "No Demo Favorite Sons. The Deseret News. September 20, 1971.
^ Elections A to Z.
^ Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections.
^ The Presidential-Congressional Political Dictionary.
^ Bifurcated Politics.
^ California Politics 3rd Edition.
^ Safire's Political Dictionary.
^ Primary Politics.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 6 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milind Chittal[edit]

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

Possible OrangeMoody recreation, appears promotional in tone. Mdann52 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mdann52, Promotional language can be edit out, and there are references on the web that could improve this page, but OrangeMoody problems are serious. Is there a way to find out for sure? No use improving a page that will inevitably be deleted.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anne Delong and Mdann52, Is it right to permanently delete articles although they might be orangeMoody recreations?The subject of the article "Milind Chittal" is an eminent Indian vocalist and has all the credentials to be included in Wikipedia. Hence request that the page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sursadhana (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 November 2015

Sursadhana, if an article is deleted because of undisclosed paid editing, it can be recreated by a neutral editor with new text, not that which was paid for. This is assuming that there is enough information in reliable independent sources to warrant this. If you know that the text was created by a paid editor, you should register a delete !vote and give this as a reason, because in that case the sooner this one is deleted, the sooner a fresh one can be made by an editor who is not paid, or at least admits to being paid.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anne Delong and Mdann52, Perhaps it was a mistake since the previous creator of the article got lured and induced into paying for the article to be published in wikipedia.However I feel that this maybe condoned atleast for once and the article be retained if "Milind Chittal" meets other criteria and standards set by wikipedia.The current article has been recreated with changes in the text compared to the previous one made, although it cannot be drastically changed.Request you once again to reconsider and restore the article before deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sursadhana (talk • contribs) 08:52, 15 November 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although News, Books, web searches and WP:INDAFD all found some links, there wasn't anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 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 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mdann52 Since there has not been a clear consensus on deletion and new citations have been added to the article,the nomination for deletion may please be withdrawn and the article retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sursadhana (talk • contribs) 04:09, 27 November 2015

Sursadhana Actually that's not quite the case as I have to say I still think there are simply not enough in-depth third-party sources overall for an article. Additionally, an Orangemoody restarted article especially with no better improvement is taken very seriously. But as I'm not Indian, I'll notify some users who are and may have some insight for a consensus. Yash!, AKS.9955, SpacemanSpiff and MichaelQSchmidt. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 28 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! 01:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable musician and has been covered by several independent and credible sources. Has been active for over three decades. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,why not retain this article in the main space and withdraw the deletion nomination since an active Indian administrator has given positive feedback on the notability of this musician? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sursadhana (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 6 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 redirect to Silibinin. And merge as editors may desire. Not much discussion, but nobody is for keeping this as a separate article. Sandstein 10:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfad[edit]

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

No coverage in the secondary biomedical literature so fals WP:GNG. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much of the coverage I found felt like it was some kind of WP:FRINGE stuff... Perhaps this is a case of WP:NOTADVOCATE mixed with WP:PROFRINGE? Whatever the case, it fails WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure maybe Merge to Silibinin This seems to be a drug that is a formulation of Silibinin. Wikipedia does not have good coverage of drug formulations and articles on these are welcome, but need solid sources. The sources cited here are primary research and case studies and not WP:MEDRS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 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 03:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 22 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! 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 6 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. Broad consensus here that the sources presented are insufficient to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo Sogunro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. It was nominated for deletion in October 2013 and the debate was closed as "No consensus" but I don't see how the author met WP:NAUTHOR#3. Majority of the sources in the article and the ones are found through WP:BEFORE are unreliable and self-published. Being invited to speak in local events is not an evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per criteria cited by Wikicology. Because he writes articles for notable newspapers or through his personal blog does not make him notable. A paragraph reads thus: "Since 2013, Ayo Sogunro has been listed consecutively as one of the 100 most influential Nigerians on Twitter.", when did Twitter become an award entity? --—OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches mostly found some links at Books and News but simply nothing better, too soon at best. Draft and userfy if needed. Notifying past AfD commenters (and African user) Versace1608, Stanleytux, Jamie Tubers and Takeaway. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't have time to research if new sources have emerged since the first nomination. I can only refer to the sources that I found then for this, apparently, notable and controversial writer, social commentator, and activist, who seems to attract quite some opposition. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayo Sogunro. It would seem that this person's notability should not only be based on his merits as an author, but also for being a well known social commentator. - Takeaway (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not enough to establish the subject's notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the person seems to attract quite a lot of opposition. - Takeaway (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It has been more than a year since this article was first nominated for deletion, and nothing has improved/changed. I still feel that the notability of the subject is in question because of the lack of extensive coverage. If someone can provide me references that discusses the subject in significant detail, I won't hesitate to change my views. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Versace's opinion. The fact that the subject of the article is controversial does not make him notable. It does seem that there could be a source that confirms notability for the subject, its just not in the article yet. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there is some sourcing out there, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Singh Nijjar[edit]

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

~~Not notable enough for an article The Avengers 09:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 03:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. None of the articles listed in the Filmography section have any mention of this person. sst✈^(discuss) 13:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to even suggest better minimal general notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 11 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 redirect to Wedding Pullav. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Ranjan[edit]

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

~~Not notable enough The Avengers 09:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 04:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the only film Wedding Pullav. Being the lead actress she might be a searchable term. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and simply it will stay like that until there's enough for a considerably better article as there's hardly even general notability for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 11 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Guinea-Bissau[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unsourced The Banner talk 09:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails ONEEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely notable for 1 event. Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 6 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 inMusic Brands. I had relisted this, but since the nom also suggests a merge as an option, closing as such. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numark Industries[edit]

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

This is a product catalogue, a brochure. All it lacks is a price list. Two valid outcomes present themselves:

Merge to InMusic Brands, the parent company, with any salvageable information
Delete

As it stands either outcome is acceptable, assuming InMusic Brands to be inherently notable. I have not checked that. Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks Timtrent for nominating even though I had some plans about this article myself. I think Merge would be best as I'm actually familiar with this area and know the name well but as my searches have shown, there's no considerably better coverage thus no better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Yeah I'm with SwisterTwister on this - I suspect there's a decent article to be made about Numark but I'm struggling for sources, and the InMusic Brands one needs some more info as that's just a list of its subsidiaries. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 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 no consensus. This never should have been on AfD because the proposal wasn't to delete, it was to merge or redirect. That conversation should have taken place on the article's talk page, in a much lighter-weight process than AfD. Be that as it may, opinion here is all over the map; there's no consensus to do anything in particular. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Merge or redirect this article to Abraham Lincoln.~~

We can't have articles as Abraham Lincoln's childhood, Abraham Lincoln's love Life, Enemies of Abraham Lincoln, Friends of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln's descendants, Abraham Lincoln's hobby. The Avengers 08:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was completely unaware that this page has been AFDeed so many times before. The Avengers 08:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The page was created by a disruptive editor. The Avengers 09:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We actually have many articles about historical figures' childhoods, love-lives, families, and, yes, even their sexuality. Having separate articles for multiple sections of a notable figure's life allows to provide a more detailed analysis, without having to clog up the main article. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination, as the article's topic has been covered by a range of sources and thus clearly meets the WP:GNG. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is actually full of redirects other than Jesus and Shakespeare. The Avengers 10:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Hitler. The point is that articles like this one already exist and should continue to exist. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs lots of work, but the subject has certainly been debated and discussed frequently enough and in enough depth to warrant a separate article. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While this is based (apparently) on an academic source, it strikes me that the academic in question has been guilty of the kind of original research that WP deplores. We have a long exploration of the historiography of the subject based on very little substantive evidence, mostly on speculations undertaken long after the event, probably by people with an agenda that they wanted to push. If this is something that is seriously discussed, it might warrant a couple of sentences in the main bio-article, but such speculation is essentially non-encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original research that Wikipedia deplores is explicitly limited to that of editors. If it's been published, the concept of original research is irrelevant. People's agendas and historiography are likewise irrelevant to whether or not a topic is notable, which is determined only by the extent to which it is covered by reliable sources. So if the sources we would otherwise rely on for notability of this topic -- and justification of a stand-alone article -- are not reliable (and I haven't yet looked closely myself), that's one thing, but these other things aren't reasons for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we do, do NOT merge or redirect: The claim that Lincoln was gay is hilariously stupid. As the article says its a "fringe" issue. Similarly, the idea that someone else wrote Shakespeare is also incredibly stupid, yet such silliness has spawned hundreds of books. It is a maxim that everyone is gay on the internet somewhere[28][29][30][31][32], but this case, of only a very few (see Category:Sexuality of individuals) has become a notable one. Thus we are doomed to forever reverting gay slur edits in this article. (Though one guy who was likely gay doesn't have a separate article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination)).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the nomination is actually asking for merging/redirecting and AfDs are not for that. Also, no reason as such is provided in rationale; WP:OSE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:39, 8 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 Materialscientist (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shreemat sadguru padmnabhacharya swami maharaj[edit]

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

~~Padmnabhacharya swami maharaj, The user is changing the name. The Avengers 08:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 02:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:03, 6 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 18:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shigehto Yumi[edit]

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

(Coped from Talk:Shigehto Yumi)

This article is largely unsourced claptrap. There is something in Japanese called a shigedō no yumi (with shigedō spelled variously in kanji as wikt:重籐, wikt:滋籐, or wikt:繁籐), but there's nothing called a shigehto yumi, nor the more-standard Hepburn romanization possibilities of shigeito yumi or shigeto yumi.

An anonymous user discussed this with me over on Wiktionary a while back; I suspect this anon (using a series of anonymous IP addresses) is the same person as User:Mare-Silverus. See wikt:User_talk:Eirikr/2013#Others for that thread.

I don't think the shigedō no yumi meets the Wikipedia requirement for notability. I see too that the Japanese Wikipedia has no article at ja:重籐, with the main mentions occurring in subsections of the ja:弓 (武器) (Bow (weapon)) and ja:和弓 (Yumi or traditional Japanese bow) articles.

I'm nominating this article for deletion. If it survives the review process, the article is in need of 1) moving to a more-standard spelling (I suggest just Shigedō, or possibly Shigedō no yumi or Shigedō bow), and 2) complete rewriting. See wikt:重籐 and wikt:User_talk:Eirikr/2013#Others for some reference. The two bows on the left of this image are two different styles of shigedō bow.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks mostly like fancruft to me. The bow has appeared in a number of games and manga/anime such as Nobunaga no Yabo[33], Final Fantasy 11[34], Samurai of Legend[35], and Naruto[36]. The only source that doesn't look like fancruft is this page from a European kyudo organization. The Wiki article looks like a copypaste of this. I doubt it is an RS, however.Michitaro (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That European kyudo organization's page appears to be the same content as the now-defunct http://www.zenko.org/bows.htm/ page that the anon indicated as their source in the thread on my Wiktionary Talk page. This content is not backed up by much, from what I could find poking around the Japanese internet. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:30, 23 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! 02:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NN and Redirect its redirects to Yumi.

There are a few book sources with "shigeto no yumi", etc, however all appear to indicate that the bow is rattan bound rather than purple leather.
The Shigeto as a type of bow is mentioned three times (with three different wielder) in the fourteenth century The Tale of the Heike (ie: well before Nobanuga) including:

In his quiver were twenty four arrows barred with black on their white feathers, not to speak of the special arrow, feathered with a hawk's wing, always carried by the Imperial Guard of the Takiguchi. His bow was a 'shigeto' of black lacquer with red binding.

There's a picture of the Shigeto no Yumi here
The Shigeto is mentioned at the Japanese page for kubi jikken as part of the costume for the ceremony, and this throws up a few hits on Google Books.

... but there's nothing that suggests there's sufficient to make an article of its own. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 04:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find shigeto, only shigedō. I do see a few stray instances of 重藤, which presumably might be read as shigeto, but that appears to be a misspelling of 重籐 -- note the difference in radical on the second character, 艹 (from 艸) for the former, and 竹 for the latter. The 藤 in the former spelling means wisteria, which is clearly out of place in this context, while the 籐 in the latter spelling means rattan, which is appropriate for the bows. The latter spelling is the only one I'm finding in dictionary resources, such as Daijisen here or Daijirin here, among others, which all list the reading as shigedō. I only find shigeto in English resources, which strike me as less reliable on the whole.

(Naturally, all of this may be moot if no article is forthcoming.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You're the translator here, and this is rather outside the parameters for the AFD but...)

There are a few reasons I can think of why this may have been romanised as shigeto:

Long "o" has often been transcribed "o" rather than "ō"/"oo"/"ou"
The word is uncommon, and likely to be found in written sources only. Since the roots are shige + tō, a translator might not identify that the "tō" might become voiced (or unvoiced unaspirated??)
-籐 as a suffix does not universally apply rendaku -- see here. Not sure how trustworthy that is in its entirety, but note that there's a number of instances of "katō" being written 加籐 (eg this.
Given the age of the word, it's possible that "-to" rather than "-do" was deliberate to reflect the standard Middle-Japanese pronunciation (???).
And getting even further into the Offtopic Original Research morass: There may be a punning reason. If there were ever a purplish wrapping involved as the current article suggests, then a pronunciation suggesting wisteria might be appropriate.

Should it ever warrant an article (or even a mention in an article) it should be shigetō per WP:MOS-JA since the majority of English Language sources appear to romanise it as shigeto rather than anything else. A search in Google books for '"shige-X" bow OR yumi' has 3 hits for -dō, 24 for -tō, 1 for -dou, 7 for -tou, 18 for -do, and ~~489~~ for -to ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you. I'm curious, how did you run your search? I compare Google Books searches for "shigedo bow" OR "shigedō bow" OR "shigedo yumi" OR "shigedō yumi" and for "shigeto bow" OR "shigetō bow" OR "shigeto yumi" OR "shigetō yumi", and I get different numbers -- 5 books show up as hits for the "d" spelling, and a purported 74 (collapsing to just 22 when paging through) for the "t" spelling.

FWIW, rendaku is more common when the preceding morpheme has two morae, so a reading of katō for 加籐 is expected, while kadō would be odd. I also did find a Japanese resource that specifically mentions the "t" reading, but as an alternative: this entry in Daijisen.

If an article is deemed appropriate, I'm fine with WP:MOS-JA, provided that the article mentions that the Japanese reading more commonly uses the "d". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's instances where the words are not adjacent, for example here where 2 out 3 hits are for Ni(t)chō no Yumi Chigusa no Shigedō. Apologies, however: I missed that Shigeto throws up a lot of false positives ("Shigeto" as a name, homonyms of "bow", Google's random count...) so true figure would be closer to 48 than 480... ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The title is plainly wrong, since 'eht' cannot occur in standard romanisation as specified for WP. The whole article is dubious, and it is better deleted; it is not our job to hunt for nuggets of truth among the confusion. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:45, 12 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 Sylvan (disambiguation). Sandstein 18:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan[edit]

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

IMHO, this is a dictionary entry, but WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The content may be transferred to Wiktionary or possibly (fully or partly) included in Sylvan (disambiguation). PanchoS (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge with Sylvan (disambiguation). Not enough here for a standalone article. Chunky Rice (talk) 18:51, 25 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! 01:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge as per above. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 05:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 6 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 no consensus. Of note is that the nominator withdrew (diff), stating "(I didn't think about searching "Maris Racal", Sources aren't amazing but notability's there by a bare minimum, Thanks Narutolovehinata5 for the pointer)", which was reverted by another user. However, per this initial closure, the nominator does not appear to be for deletion of the article at this time. As such, no consensus has formed herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maris Canedo Racal[edit]

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

I originally CSD'd under A7 but was declined, Anyway non notable actress, Can't find anything on Google or anywhere else, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:31, 29 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! 01:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes not quite A7 but surely PROD material....but as we are here, I found nothing better at all and this is basically unlikely notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister - I don't bother with Prod as you wait a week and then you get some tool that removes it so thus a whole week is wasted.... –Davey2010^Talk 15:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Articles about the subject have been deleted in the past due to WP:TOOSOON. However, since then, she has received coverage even from sources independent of ABS-CBN (of which she is signed to). She has also have a number of acting roles, perhaps just barely enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Sources about the subject are more commonly found under just "Maris Racal" rather than variations of her real name. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - @Davey2010: I have reverted your withdrawal as a delete !vote was given above. Let this run its course instead. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:17, 10 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Barnes[edit]

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

Racing driver that never appeared to regularly compete in any major series, and as such has no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. QueenCake (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:29, 29 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! 01:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see why there are no other comments on this one, it required a lot of investigation...first off I looked at Notability motorsports - a driver must have been professional on at least one occasion in a major competition - then had to trawl through the numerous amateur tournaments he competed in to see if anything he competed in was professional. The article mentions two professional appearances in the GT3 European so I thought he's in, but on closer inspection the GT3 was intended for amateur drivers however some were paid, therefore my opinion is that he fails notability motorsports because the cost of the drive would largely exceed the likely paid fee. Happy to further discuss this one. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. European GT3 doesn't quite clear the bar for notability, and he doesn't seem to clear GNG otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 7 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bharath Shetty[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE, no significant coverage of the subject found at Google News or Google Books, only passing mentions, as far as I can tell. All references in the article appear to be to yoga directories, not to reliable published sources independent of the subject. Article comes off as promotional and was created by an SPA. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 29 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! 01:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:GNG. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 6 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. If anyone would like to contest this deletion please post on my talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Haddad[edit]

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

Seemingly questionable notable and improvable as my searches simply found nothing at all so unless there's some archived French coverage, there's nothing to suggest keeping this. Notifying Wikimandia who lists to be notified for French insight, as there are no other past contributors or taggers and it's worth noting the author's name was "Laswalidas". SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 29 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) 06:56, 6 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA-LP[edit]

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

Station was only on paper and was never launched (ie: took to the airwaves). As such, the station (and by extension this article), does not enjoy the notability that other radio station articles do under GNG, NMEDIA and consensus. Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 04:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 05:35, 29 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) 06:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination as well. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can imagine a "special case" scenario where a station which was licensed, but never actually launched and thus had its license expire unbuilt, might still get over WP:GNG for something (e.g. it was at the core of a massive controversy about the licensing), but no evidence has been shown that this would be the case here — and radio stations that never actually broadcast at all do not get an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yeah, this is one of those special cases. Page was created before the station was launched, so it didn't meet NMEDIA and GNG. Dravecky and Mlaffs have nom'd a couple paper-only stations before. That's why when a station is launched, we don't create the page for it until that day. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 11 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 no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young European of the Year[edit]

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

Notability unclear. Most sources I've seen are either primary, not reliable, or just looking for nominations for this award. I also see no claim of significance. Was tagged CSD A7, but this is clearly outside A7's scope. Adam9007 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:37, 22 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! 02:15, 29 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) 06:50, 6 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 no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Blake[edit]

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

I originally CSD'd under A7 but was declined, Anyway non notable model, Can't find anything on Google or anywhere else, Fails MODEL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:40, 29 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! 01:40, 29 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) 06:48, 6 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 redirect to WeTab. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neofonie[edit]

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

Deleted as unimportant in the deWP at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10._Dezember_2008#Neofonie_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29. That, of course, was before the developments after 2008. It was also meentioned at that discussion that perhaps the material should go with the founder and developed of the company, whose article on enWP is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmut Hoffer von Ankershoffen.

I have no firm opinion but they both need to be considered. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this seems simple with the best my searches finding only this, this, this and this. I wonder if we could restore the redirect to WeTab. Unfortunately the article has never changed from its current promotional and non-notable state and I think even tagger Mean as custard would agree, and I see no chances of making the article better. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 21 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! 01:06, 29 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) 06:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering this has gotten to a second relist, I'm notifying MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard who have asked me to notify them of low traffic AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WeTab (with the history preserved under the redirect). The sources mentioning Neofonie that I reviewed were primarily about WeTab. I recommend preserving the history under the redirect so that it can be undone if the company receives substantial coverage in the future. I agree with SwisterTwister: "I wonder if we could restore the redirect to WeTab." Cunard (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 11 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shohada Basij Ray FSC[edit]

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

Non-notable club JMHamo (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This club played 3 seasen in the Iranian Premiere Futsal League a professional futsal league competition for clubs located at the highest level of the Iranian futsal league system.--saeedparva 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:Reliable Sources for your claim that this is a professional league. JMHamo (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which league? Iranian Premiere Futsal League?--saeedparva 21:02, 21 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! 00:11, 29 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) 06:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:18, 6 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. No consensus here for a redirect, but if somebody wants to do that later, I'm not going to stand in their way. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercentenarians from the Nordic countries[edit]

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

This List creates an undue maintenance hassle. We already have at least three supersets above it: List of the verified oldest people and seperately Oldest_people covering the world, and List of European supercentenarians plus subsets of the list by country like List_of_Norwegian_supercentenarians, List of Finnish supercentenarians, etc. Since there is nothing inherently notable about the Nordic countries as a group intersecting with old age, this list should be merged up into the Europe List and then deleted. A redirect to the Europe list could be left if desired. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally redundant. Why do we need such a list for a group of countries, when the same information is adequately presented at the country and continent level? Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We also don't need the Balkans, Iberia, the Low Countries, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN as there are no sources (not even the GRG) discussing "Nordic supercentenarians". Also redundant because as stated, each name in this article is also covered in the country and deaths in year articles under Template:Longevity. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European list, obviously. EEng (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment' turns out this list ALSO has overlap with List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire (modern Finland born people) which is also up for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to European list. There is no nexus between being Nordic and being long-lived. WP:FANCRUFT David in DC (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even if there was it would be no less visible in the Europe list. (I'm still unconvinced we shouldn't have just one giant world-wide list.) EEng (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Sign me up for the giant worldwide list. Canadian Paul 06:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Content fork. Ceosad (talk) 17:07, 13 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 Redirect to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Please could the people who know this sort of stuff do this editorially? Sandstein 18:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tinctoria[edit]

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

Every entry here is a partial title match. Deleting all these entries leaves an empty disambiguation page. With no redirect target in site, delete is the only option left. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nearly every entry here is populated by ((Species abbreviation)) which reached consensus to delete atWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Template:Species abbreviation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a Google search turning up nothing but Wikipedia articles about plants. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 02:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Add two other forms of this Latin word to nomination for the same reason. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding Innotata. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding Giganteum and Gigantea (species). For Gigantea, the first entry is a genus, not a species. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All except Innotata have a Wiktionary entry (for the lower case word). Would replacing these pages by soft redirects to Wiktionary be better than actual deletion? DexDor^(talk) 06:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, perhaps specifying the section (letter of alphabet) adding them where not already present - Tinctorius is already listed there. I am going to suggest that the entries there for whole words, as opposed to prefixes, should include a link to ((in title)), which would provide a useful service to readers. PamD 13:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added Giganteus and Innotatus to that list. PamD 13:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And had a go at enhancing it - see List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names#I–K for three variations on how to do it, or see Talk:List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names#Searching on species names PamD 14:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have now upgraded that list in sections A,B and C: takes a little time, what with following up side issues which crop up as I go. But I'll get it done. PamD 14:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "D" now done. PamD 15:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Species_abbreviations. PamD 13:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am okay with the redirect idea. I didn't know the list existed when I nominated. I'm maintaining a list of similar pages at User:Oiyarbepsy/Species abbrevation and any editor is welcome to add to it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with regard to WP:PTM, the pages contribute very little over search engine output. Section redirects seem reasonable, although if we wanted to keep the navigation aid, we should also sprinkle ((in title)) in the list article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Back to delete~~ I've reconsidered my comment above and concluded that a redirect would be worse than worthless to our readers. A reader encountering one of these words probably saw them in a species name, and to be redirect to a page that tells them it's used in species names is entirely pointless. The search function would serve readers better in this case. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a page which (a) tells them that it's used in species names, (b) links to Wiktionary, (c) explains its meaning and (d) offers an "in title" link to articles including it (as in my proposed enhancement of List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, currently implemente at I-K), would be far from pointless. PamD 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is it more useful than a page of search results? I would say no. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more useful - and have enhanced section "A" of the list. PamD 18:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is cheap, too (literally: as I recall a redirection actually takes up less server space than a deletion does). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per PamD. DexDor^(talk) 10:39, 6 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 Userfy. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inequality within publicly traded companies[edit]

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

A personal essay. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I am sympathetic to the author and think that some of this material, when sourced, might properly exist in other articles, this is clearly a WP:Essay and as such, belongs on a user page, not as an independent article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:17, 21 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! 03:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Userfy - This appears to be a class project. On a side note, the talk page does seem to have been used as a "peer-review" forum. As for the AFD, I would err on the side of being nice and encourage improvements to the article rather than deleting it all-together. GabeIglesia (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you think anything in this article is actually salvageable? The style is that of a polemic, not an encyclopedia article. There are no sources whatsoever. The article topic itself is promoting a point of view. "Being nice" isn't an excuse for paying no attention to Wikipedia's policies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hmm. I had a look at the article again, and the lack of citations is concerning. And I also see how the style is rather polemic. As for "being nice," I think WP:DONTBITE is a policy worth considering - although not necessarily one that is superior to other policies. Considering it's a student project (which by no means am I arguing is necessarily a reason to automatically keep it), it's probably best to move it to the creator's sandbox or userpage. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to Jhutch2872 with an admonition about WP:OR. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I also recommend WMF contacting Kent State University to remind them of guidelines and policies regarding articles. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transportation inequality in the United States. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy at best as there is imaginably a better acceptable article later but there's hardly much currently aside from what would seem like a journal report. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy would also be fine. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:47, 10 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rowley (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Autobiography that contains inadequate evidence of notability. (If independent evidence of notability can be supplied other than by the author, I am of course willing to keep.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment it looks like he may have won or at least been nominated for National Union of Journalists award.^[1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment it also looks like he was voted in the top 50 of political commentators in the UK, although who knows how big the list was. ^[2] Tiggerjay (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Television & Radio. Independent Broadcasting Authority. 1986.
^ "Press Gazette's top 50 political reporters".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:09, 29 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! 05:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a few refs in the article but nothing that indicates he's notable. A recently created article which won't go anywhere because his career is in its twilight or ended. Szzuk (talk) 16:39, 6 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Sidika[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

low noteworthy person, low quality sources, help this article out and delete it Govindaharihari (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 21 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! 00:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, needs improvement, look at the previous deletion discussion. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 23:53, 29 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! 05:17, 6 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. No discrimination to a request at WP:REFUND. Mabalu if you'd like it work on it, you may do so formally there. Mkdw ^talk 05:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L. Nichols Buttons[edit]

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

No evidence this person/business meets the notability guidelines for WP:BIO/WP:CORP. Declined speedy deletion. Kelly ^hi! 02:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy as the article had already been challenged per the talk page, and there are claims that coverage exists in Vogue, the Sunday Telegraph, etc. This is a thorny one because we are talking about a mid-20th century British craftsman whose work would have had very high profile exposure, but he would not necessarily have been widely credited for that work. I have found one article published in a guild journal Article published in The Journal for Weavers, Spinners & Dyers - BUT that article was written by Dixie Nichols, the subject's daughter, so not exactly neutral/unconnected. A search for Lionel Nichols pulled up a book on Norman Hartnell that I actually have a copy of, so I checked - he is not mentioned in the book, the only Nichols is LA Nichols in the bibliography who wrote something about the Royal Family. I am really conflicted about this, because on technicalities, I can see it is almost definitely going to be deleted, but it makes me sad to think that it will be. Mabalu (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:13, 21 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! 00:13, 21 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! 01:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I found was only this....hardly much. As this one is also getting dangerously close to a "no consensus", I'm notifying DGG, MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard who all ask to be notified of low traffic AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that allowed on Wikipedia per WP:Canvassing? Seems like a very obvious attempt to influence (or at least consolidate) the AFD outcome, which I think is pretty clearly going to be delete anyway. Mabalu (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We;ve discussed this extensive a few days ago at AN/I. When I started here I tried to look at all afds; then I found myself able to only do it in topics of interest where my !vote might help make a decision in a neglected or uncertain case. I can now do longer even do that, unless someone notifies me, and I have asked those interested to do so. As always, those who ask me cannot predict what I will say. I consider ST sensible, and find myself agreeing with ST a good deal of the time, but I do not look at ST's opinion before deciding my own; in fact, I try not to look atanybody's opinion before deciding, or even look at who it was that nominated it. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain This is the sort of industry for which there does exist some specialized coverage, but I do not have easy access to it. I simply cannot tell--it is possible the firm is notable, and it is also possible that the importance has been exaggerated by the spa author. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've got to agree with DGG here about the uncertainty. It does seem notable since glass buttons from that time period from the UK is rare. Most glass buttons came from Bohemia. The thing is, this article is closely related to textiles and that's not Wikipedia's audience so I don't think it matters much one way or the other. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 06:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a discussion on the talk page:
This article is about a key figure in the 1940s to 60s British Haute Couture industry and many buyers have requested a page and been suprised that there has ot already been one made. Articles about the said buttons have been in magazines such as Vogue, Interiors and the Sunday Telegraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistle1127 (talk • contribs)
I'm not convinced that would satisfy WP:BIO, but will remove the tag. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 19:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That it's been asserted that there have been articles about the buttons in Vogue, Interiors magazine, and The Sunday Telegraph indicate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
I cannot support retention because no citation information has been provided about which articles have discussed the buttons. I cannot support deletion because of FUTON bias and Wikipedia:Offline sources.
Cunard (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the current sourcing and what can be found online (and what was found offline by Mabalu), I don't think this can pass WP:GNG. The old talk page statement found by Cunard is enough to show significance (saving the article from an A7), but, without the actual articles in question, it's not quite enough to prove the necessary notability to keep this article. clpo13_(talk) 19:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space. Worldcat shows many possible references . Search as su:buttons. [37]. Someone has to be willing to do the work, of course. I think I've shown it's possible. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But who's going to do the rewriting? I mean I agree that it probably is notable, however, this type of article just isn't Wikipedia's target audience so maybe Wikipedia ought let this article go so that google searches can focus on providing a better top article. Just a thought! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument that just because something isn't for "Wikipedia's target audience" then it probably should be deleted (even if it is likely notable) is one of the most bizarre AFD statements I've ever seen on here. The question is about notability, not whether something is likely to match the requirements of a predetermined group of people. Mabalu (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is Wikipedia doesn't have anyone with the interest (possibly info) to write a better article than what's already out there. However, from what I can tell, you'd be the best possible choice here to give it a go. And I believe that since google wants to now default to Wikipedia, Wikipedia should begin to take that into consideration seeing as it's pretty well known by now that Wikipedia can only attract certain types editors with the same interests. One evidence of that is the multiple times I encounter editors stating there are no more new articles to create. In fact, a ton of articles are ending up in AfD mainly because they are poorly written more than any other reason. Sure, the article gets tagged as "not notable" but the reality is that tag could be applied to almost anything. Pushing to keep notable articles that the majority of Wikipedia has little to zero knowledge in, is a losing battle since eventually they will be deleted. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have it in my userspace, although I can't imagine where I'm going to find anything relevant for it as I've already tried several times to find sources. To be honest, I think deletion is inevitable in this particular case, but at least there IS a source out there in the guild journal I could find, so it won't be completely consigned to obscurity. Mabalu (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I find interesting/entertaining is there are no button makers/manufacturers of notability on Wikipedia except this one! (Which like you've stated is likely to be deleted.) --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There IS Jean Schlumberger who did buttons for Elsa Schiaparelli but has far more notability as a jeweller.... But we digress/veer off topic a bit. Mabalu (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the info! Actually, Nichols began making jewelry in the 60's too. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 03:40, 12 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. Indepth coverage was not established and the WP:BURDEN was not acted upon. Mkdw ^talk 05:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Bogdanov (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. I had PROD'd this for the same reason but the de-PRODer disagreed about not meeting WP:NBOX - and of course I disagree with that. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets prong #2 of WP:NBOX. Has fought for and won a regional WBO title (Oriental title). Also, for a guy that has only once fought outside of Russia (and that was in Moldova) I found a number of English sources that discuss him: [38], [39], [40], and [41]. Of course a lot of these are not in depth, but considering this level of coverage in English and the meeting of WP:NBOX I think its fair to presume that Russian sources exist. Therefore keep. RonSigPi (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to WP:NBOX #1 applies and he did not fight for the world title of the WBOPeter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree #1 is not met, but #2 is. Only one of the four need met - failing to not meet another is irrelevant. Otherwise, someone like Manny Pacquiao or Jack Johnson would not meet the guidelines since they didn't have an amateur career that meets #4. RonSigPi (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just don't see how #2 is met.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:05, 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 03:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fighting for a vacant minor title is not enough. Title is another questionable one from a boxing organization. Two non-Orientals fighting for the vacant Oriental title seems like an attempt to pad resumes.Mdtemp (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mdtemp: "Orient" means the east, ie Asia. And 90 percent of Russia is in Asia. I don't know where you think the Philippines is... —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanov is from near the Estonian border which can hardly be considered Asia. Without wanting to get too sidetracked, back when I was in school during the Dark Ages we were taught there were 3 races--Caucasian, Negroid, and Oriental. I always figured that Mdtemp, like almost all WP editors was a lot younger than I am, but using it as a race definition then both fighters would be "non-Oriental". I don't think any of this aspect necessarily reflects on notability one way or the other.

Bogdanov is not representing Pskov, he is representing RUSSIA, which spans Asia. And what athletic competitions are categorized by RACE? That is seriously laughable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I said I didn't want to go into this, I feel compelled to respond. Russia is considered part of Europe by every athletics association I'm aware of. Furthermore, he's representing himself--not Russia. I doubt that there is a universal agreement of what countries make up the Orient--Australia is further east than China, but I don't know any Australians who consider themselves Oriental. Germany is east of France, are they Oriental? It may seem like I'm being silly, but vaguely named titles do seem a bit confusing. As I said originally, this is off topic and I'll comment no more on this aspect. Papaursa (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines is clearly in the Orient. Obviously the World Boxing Federation considers Russia eligible to compete in the Orient title. This is separate from the Asian titles. You can contact them for answers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WBO title and significant coverage in Russian press. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which again does not contribute to WP:NBOX being a regional non-world title.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While I think it could be argued he meets criteria #2 of WP:NBOX, those guidelines have been discussed previously as being very, indeed overly, generous. In this case I think GNG trumps SNG, and he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG with coverage being limited to fight announcements and results. Papaursa (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa That's not true; he's had enough coverage to meet GNG, including television profiles [42], [43],[44] [45]. WP:BEFORE states you need to look for native language sources before AFD and nominator did not do that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last relist. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:36, 6 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. The concerns of notability appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spark Energy[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the links I found were only this and this for the Houston, Texas company and the also this, this and this for the Selkirk, Scotland company. If at all, it seems there's somewhat more coverage for the Scottish company but all in all, both also seem questionably keepable. Notifying author Victorgrigas and also DGG who lists to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some sources to show that the company based in Scotland has grown rapidly and received quite a bit of coverage. I consider that there is enough for it to have WP:CORPDEPTH. The article had just contained a small amount of information on the Scottish company until 12 October when there some material added to the article which related to a separate US company. I have removed this from the article and put it on the talk page- it consists of a couple of press releases and a page on a listing site. The US company began as Spark Energy Ventures in 1999 and was incorporated in 2014. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references all seem to indicate it is not yet notable. It's odd that according to an over-literal interpretations of the notability guidelines 2 or 3 references saying or implying that something is not notable could make it notable for our purposes. I do not accept such a irrational result. In this case, they show the firm is just a minor competitor in the field and showing its relatively low funding, and received an award for being fast-growing(which almost always implies still very new. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 21 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! 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as per DGG. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering this is the second relist, I'm notifying MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard who ask me to notify them of low traffic AfDs where they can comment for a better consensus. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, SwisterTwister (talk · contribs). Drchriswilliams (talk · contribs)'s sources from The Scotsman, The Herald, and BBC clearly demonstrate that Spark Energy passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Do you still support deletion of the article, which Drchriswilliams did extensive work on after your AfD nomination? Cunard (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Wright, Scott (2015-08-12). "Spark Energy launches job drive". The Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-12-06. Retrieved 2015-12-06.
  This article provides substantial coverage of the subject.
2. Wright, Scott (2015-01-23). "Spark sees profits soar beyond £1 million". The Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-12-06. Retrieved 2015-12-06.
3. Neal, John (2013-12-23). "Spark Energy 'impersonated customers' to remove 'debtors'". You and Yours (BBC). Archived from the original on 2015-12-06. Retrieved 2015-12-06. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. "Selkirk-based Spark Energy investigated by Ofgem". BBC. 2013-06-28. Archived from the original on 2015-12-06. Retrieved 2015-12-06.
5. "Selkirk firm Spark Energy to pay £250,000 for rules breach". BBC. 2015-02-16. Archived from the original on 2015-12-06. Retrieved 2015-12-06.
6. Jeff, Dominic (2014-01-23). "Spark Energy lands Morgan Stanley contract". The Scotsman. Archived from the original on 2015-12-06. Retrieved 2015-12-06.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spark Energy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks better and an article for the Scottish Spark Energy may be notable and acceptable but I'll still hear any more comments if they come before this AfD ends. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Drchriswilliams (talk · contribs) did excellent work sourcing, expanding, and cleaning up the article. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not getting why this is still even here! Drchriswilliams (talk · contribs) has done an awesome job on this article. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:02, 7 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 per nomination withdrawn Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Knauss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recommend delete and merge to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE. Omitting information on who was the oldest before her, after her, during her, over her, under her, and so on, reads in its entirety:

Sarah DeRemer Knauss (née Clark; September 24, 1880 – December 30, 1999) was an American supercentenarian. Of her death, state senator Charlie Dent, who had attended her 115th birthday in 1995, said "Mrs. Knauss was an extraordinary woman who pushed the outer limits of longevity. This is a sad occasion, but she certainly had an eventful life."

The senator was just making that up, of course. As an added bonus, several or most of the sources are non-RS or copyvios.

Special note: Ms. Knauss herself has !voted, from beyond the grave (as it were), for the deletion of her own (and other similar) articles. According to [46]:

She became the world's oldest person in 1998 upon the death of Marie-Louise Febronie Meilleur of Quebec, who was 117. But when her family members walked her into the dining room to tell her of her new fame, she smiled and said: "So what?"

EEng (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn to allow my fellow editors to try to find more substance to include in the article. EEng (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just noticed this edit [47] from a few hours ago. Before someone says that other editor and I were acting in concert: we weren't. And presence of the deleted material wouldn't have changed my NOPAGE recommendation. EEng (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh! Earwig's copy violation detector Sarah Knauss I would say that the copy violations are easily cured and are by themselves no reason to delete. Her sole claim to fame, I gather, is super longevity. Listing of others must exist somewhere, and could be added to the article if that would help. She is #2 on List of the verified oldest people, and almost all of those have an article. She is the oldest verified American super centarian, if that list is to be believed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make myself clear -- the article links to [48] as a source, and that link is a blatant copyvio of a newspaper article; our article's shouldn't carry such links. As to your other point, yes, there's also List of supercentenarians from the United States, and since apparently there's nothing at all to say about Ms. Knauss, the right thing to do is redirect to that list, where she can be seen in context with other similar people. EEng (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminated link to website that is violation of The Morning Call's copyright. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dislike serial WP:PRODs, and note that there has been no apparent compliance with WP:Before. I am adding citations now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work fixing the cites, but you're missing the point of the nomination. Most nominations are based on questions about the subject's notability, but here the question the one posed at WP:NOPAGE:

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

My point is that (as with most of these long-lived people) there's actually very little to say about their lives, so it's best to make them "part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context" i.e. in a list article along with other long-livers DOB, DOD, place of birth/death, and so on. Where there's a bit more to say or a photo, the list articles have "mini-bios" as well. EEng (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to be a case of not following WP:BEFORE. She is the second oldest person who ever lived, I doubt that she wouldn't be in some books at the least or studies done on her longevity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my note to 7&6. This has nothing to do with notability or coverage. EEng (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes a clear and unambiguous claim of notability and backs up the claim with a broad range of reliable and verifiable sources to create an appropriately substantial article about the subject that meets any and every aspect of the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be added to "create an appropriately substantial article" (which it obviously isn't now)? EEng (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, The article makes a clear and unambiguous claim of notability and backs up the claim with a broad range of reliable and verifiable sources to create an appropriately substantial article about the subject that meets any and every aspect of the Wikipedia notability standard. Nothing needs to be added. Don't make me copy the full text of the article into this talk page. Alansohn (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But all it says about her is what I quoted in the nomination. Everything else is about other people (who was the "titleholder" before and after her, etc.) and would be apparent to the reader when looking at Knauss in an appropriate list article. EEng (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, The article makes a clear and unambiguous claim of notability and backs up the claim with a broad range of reliable and verifiable sources to create an appropriately substantial article about the subject that meets any and every aspect of the Wikipedia notability standard. Nothing needs to be added. Don't make me copy the full text of the article into this talk page. I'll Do it. Don't make me. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But all it says about her is what I quoted in the nomination. Everything else is about other people (who was the "titleholder" before and after her, etc.) and would be apparent to the reader when looking at Knauss in an appropriate list article. So instead of copying the article here, could you explain how the reader's understanding of the subject is enhanced by repeating in a standalone article the stuff about who was the record-holder just before and after her, which would be apparent in a list article anyway? EEng (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have gotten much more limited in our coverage of supercentenarians over the years, but deleting the article on someone who actually has been the verifiable world's oldest person is carrying things to the level of utter absurdity. I was asked to do a speedy keep on the basis of obviousness (actually, it would better be a snow keep) but I don't like to do this in the presence of good-faith opposition from someone known here for generally good judgment. (opposition from a spa would be very much another matter). So I will just urge my friend EEng to take overnight to think about it, and reconsider. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious! I had no idea I was held in such "generally" high esteem in the corridors of power. And since I'm also generally known for my impish and endearing sense of humor, you'll forgive my inserting the image at right. Now then, to the matter at hand!

I'd like to draw attention, again, to this bit of NOPAGE:

There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

As a parallel I'd readily agree that every pharaoh is notable, but one can easily believe (hypothetical -- I've got no idea about pharaohs) that there may be some about whom so little is known that there's no point in a standalone article about them -- an entry in a list, with dates of reign, parentage, and whatnot, might present him better than a tiny standalone, since in a list the reader can at least see how he fits in chronologically and so on, which would be obscured in a standalone. Same thing here.

In light of your gracious request, I'll indeed think about this overnight, but likely in the morning I'll be looking to see if anyone's added anything to the article about the subject (not fancruft about other "titleholders") which would better justify a standalone. In return, I hope you'll reconsider as well, with a focus on NOPAGE instead of N.

Thought while showering... Finally, take a look at [49], which explains in more detail my thoughts on lists and "minibios" for long-livers about whom there isn't really much to say. EEng (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC) P.S. Have you visited the Museums lately?[reply]

But especially for someone who was the second oldest person EVER, it would actually be easier to present all the "important information" together in one place. Otherwise, you'd have to look at several different lists to find out when she was the world's oldest person, her ranking among the oldest people ever, when she was America's oldest person, and so on. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An additional column in the list could easily accommodate such information. Or if it's too bulky for that, a minibio (with picture), per this discussion [50]. BTW, her comment about "So what?" would be a perfect caption for the picture. EEng (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Firstly, the claim of notability here is very clear, and there's actually a fair bit to say about this person. WP:NOPAGE does not seem to apply. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair bit to say about her? What? Where? EEng (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Dead horse. It's snowing in December. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four comments in fifteen hours on a wee early Sunday morning is hardly a snowstorm. Let's see what other editors think. EEng (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five Keeps; you miscounted. But its your show. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn doesn't count. ;) EEng (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, before this comment, this AfD had been edited 33 times, 14 of them (more than 40% of all edits) by you. You've repeated your usual arguments in the nomination and then repeated them ad nauseum with every single participant in this AfD. Why not just come up with a valid argument in your next nomination, make it your best possible argument, and then let the Wikipedia community participate as they see fit without the same constant repetition. Try it. Once. See how it works. Alansohn (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A nomination like this one -- based not on notability, as is usual, but on the NOPAGE question of whether or not to have a standalone article -- is unfamiliar to most editors at AfD, and so (not surprisingly) many editors have trouble understanding it. Often editors don't actually read the nomination text, just looking at the article to judge its sources for notability purposes -- witness the posts here (most recently Nathan's, below) speaking, irrelevantly, to notability. Thus it seems necessary to draw other editors' attention to the actual question at hand.

Some 80% of the longevity nominations in the last three months (and essentially all of those made by me personally) have ended in Delete, Merge, Redirect, etc., so it's hard to take seriously your plea that I "come up with a valid argument" in my next nomination. I'm doing just fine without your advice, thanks!

EEng (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand nominating relatively non-notable 110 year olds or whatever for deletion, but this is the second oldest person EVER, the oldest American ever, and a former world's oldest person. Generally speaking on Wikipedia, if someone passes WP:GNG (this person clearly does) then they are deserving of their own article. WP:NOPAGE is a more useful guideline for dealing with Characters in a TV show, or members of a band, where they are all notable for being part of a more-widely notable topic. On the other hand, supercentenarians are all individual people, living in different parts of the world at different times. Longevity is a very broad topic, so I fail to see how NOPAGE can be applied in this instance. Instead, this nomination just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "longevity is a very broad topic" has to do with anything, and please cut out the tired "smacks of IDONTLIKEIT", which I guess you could say about anything negative anyone says about anything. I've been hoping someone would add something to the article so it said more about the subject than what little's already there, but so far, nothing. EEng (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPAGE says "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes." ---> If we're talking about (as I say above) characters in a TV show or members of a band, it might make more sense to include mini-articles on them on pages about the TV show or the band itself, as they're all closely connected by one specific topic. On the other hand, what connects supercentenarians? Longevity. But longevity is a much wider topic than a TV show, and all supercentenarians are different people who otherwise have nothing in common. It therefore makes sense to have individual biographies for them, at least in the case when we're dealing with people who were once the "world's oldest person" or the oldest person ever from a nation.

Your nominations don't actually seem to explain how deleting these articles makes the topic more understandable. Instead, it's just you complaining that there's "nothing worthwhile or interesting" in the articles. I've explained above that the information about this person is more easily viewed in a standalone article, where the information is in one place, than in a multitude of separate lists. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting what little there is to say about her (and that excludes mindnumbing fancruft like "Knauss is the second-oldest fully documented person ever, behind Jeanne Calment. She was the last verified living person to have been born before 1885. At age 116, she was recognized as being the new United States national longevity record holder, then thought to have been held by Carrie C. White (reportedly 1874–1991). It is now believed that the record should have been held by Lucy Hannah (1875–1993), who died aged 117 years and 248 days in 1993. In any case, Knauss extended the United States longevity record to age 119. Knauss was the second fully validated person in history to reach age 118 and 119 (the first being Calment in 1993 and 1994, respectively). She came within 33 hours of having lived in three different centuries.") in a minibio, where she can be seen in the context of others like her, is a much better way to understand about these people -- together, side by side -- then by clicking through scores of trivial articles. It could all be in one place, just not disconnected from everything else. EEng (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that information that you call "mindnumbing fancruft" I would consider interesting and completely relevant to the topic, as would many others I imagine. You've just proven my point yet again: this all about your own opinion that longevity is not interesting. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That X lived to be Y years old is obviously central. When that fact was established ("At age 116, she was recognized as being the new United States national longevity record holder"), and the confusion about the records of two other people who have nothing to do with X ("thought to have been held by Carrie C. White (reportedly 1874–1991). It is now believed that the record should have been held by Lucy Hannah (1875–1993), who died aged 117 years and 248 days in 1993") is just fancruft. "She was the last verified living person to have been born before 1885" -- so she's the last born before 1885 -- so what? Who was last born before 1884? 1886? What does any of that have to do with anything? As to "She came within 33 hours of living in three centuries" -- you must be joking. EEng (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence is not necessary. Otherwise, it's all perfectly valid, relevant information. You've become so prejudiced towards this topic area because of the actions of a few so-called "fanboys" that you're deluding yourself. Look around you, the consensus amongst most other editors here - just like at other recent AfD discussions for world's oldest person articles - is in favour of keeping these articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the fact that her lifespan almost touched three separate centuries puts into larger perspective the remarkable extent of her longevity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say being the oldest living human being on Earth is a solid claim to notability. Nathan^T 20:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't in question -- please read the nomination again and comment in that light. EEng (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep respect your elders (snow). Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This source Merrill, Gary F. (February 3, 2015). Our Aging Bodies. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813575261. Retrieved December 7, 2015. shows she complies with WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, notability isn't the question. EEng (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, NOPAGE makes no sense applied to this entry. Second oldest ever. Jacona (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does notability have to do with NOPAGE? EEng (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the question. And WP:GNG is the answer. Your bare assertion is only that. Ipse dixit? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you haven't actually read NOPAGE:

Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

Notability isn't, and has never been, in question. The question is how to best present what little info there is about her. EEng (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have rules and guidelines. Apparently you have not actually bothered to read the sources in this article as it now exists. To be sure, there is more that could be said about her, and the existing sources support that. Others will carry this further.

But your insistence on one leaf (rule) in wikipedia does not make the tree or the forest (the purpose of the project; the rest of its rules) disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What other rules are you talking about? The question here is whether the subject, clearly notable, should have a standalone article or not. NOPAGE is the guideline for that. What other guideline would you bring in? Contrary to what you say, I certainly did read the sources (those that were in the article at the time of the nomination) plus made a quick check via Google. So far the new sources have added nothing substantive about her, just more fancruft like "she was 33 hours from living in 3 centuries" (not correct, actually, since 2001 was the start of the new century -- makes you kinda wonder about the source).

Anyway, your forest-leaves analogy is an apt one. It's better to present these people, in most cases, in an integrated article (a "forest") where they can all be seen side by side, than in a bunch of scattered, trivial standalones ("trees" or maybe even "leaves"). EEng (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But your insistence on one leaf (a sentence in one rule) in wikipedia does not make the tree (the rest of the rule, and the article and subject which stand on their own) or the forest (the purpose of the project; the rest of its rules) disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep stating that self-obvious abstract truism. But what sentence, what rest of rule are you talking about??? EEng (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Jacona (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again. Perhaps you can answer the question. EEng (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere strenuous repetition and intensity is no substitute for substance. Perhaps you need to reread the rest of WP:NOPAGE, rather than giving us the expurgated version. In any event, I will concede that reasonable minds may differ; hence this discussion. But in doing so I do not waiver from my position that you are wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong about what? Instead of speaking in riddles, why don't you say what other passage you think bears on this? EEng (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPAGE is a mere guideline that suggests that one ought to use editorial judgment in deciding where information ought to go. It does not command the elimination of particular pages. In any event, it is clear that there is none so blind as those who will not see. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about "commanding"?; the point of this discussion is make the judgment NOPAGE says to make. I agree there is none blind etc., to which I reply: two gloves do not a hat make. So if you're done reciting random proverbs, will you have time to point to this mysterious other part of NOPAGE you've keep talking about? EEng (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The keep !votes are not following what EEng has been stating. Yes, she has a source or two that ID her as one of the oldest living persons. And that's it. Her name comes up as "second in line" (of sorts) for other oldest living persons, but that's not equating to significant coverage. She obviously should be listed among a list of oldest living persons (having had been one), but what little there can actually be written about her directly (not in relationship to any other oldest person) is far too short for an article. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are confusing failure to agree with failure to understand. That aside, are you asserting that it's impossible to produce a properly sourced biographical article on the subject? Ravenswing 22:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm seeing what EEng has rightfully argued against what the keep !votes are presuming the argument is. And I am asserting that is impossible to produce a sourced biological article that weights on most information coming from secondary sources, as we expect for all articles. (Some primary may be needed to establish things like high school, etc.) And as EEng has shown, very few of the given sources are secondary, as they only mention her name in passing. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem Just a note but EEng has withdrawn the nomination and yours is the only non-keep vote here. If you were to withdraw your vote, I think this could be closed as a nomination withdrawn. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received extensive coverage in the media, as the then "World's oldest person" and still the second oldest person ever. This extensive coverage supports the need for a standalone article.Bodgey5 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets every requirement for a standalone article in WP:GNG. 16 other language Wikipedias have found her notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What other wikis under WMF do is not of interest to en.wiki, though if those articles have more significant coverage in sources, we should be using them here. However, the GNG is not met as there is no significant coverage. Being one of the oldest living persons is a fact, but it is not coverage. The person did little else in their live to be notable beyond living to an old age, which technically also fails WP:BLP1E. Incorporating her into a table of the oldest known living persons keeps the little information about here in summary with other such people and provides better context (replacing all those trivial notes of who she succeeded and who succeeded her). --MASEM (t) 19:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

119 years is very long for "one event", don't you think? I don't know what article you're looking at, but I see 15 sources included in this article. This person easily passed WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The one event is the moment she outlived the previously oldest person. And not all sources are equal - we do not judge by quantity but by quality, and as EEng has repeated pointed out, all but a couple are mentions of her name in passing and thus do not contribute towards the GNG. Of those that do cover her in more depth, they give very little beyond beyond beyond one of the oldest people in the world at one point. It might just trip being okay by the GNG, but as pert WP:NOPAGE we are not required to have a article on every GNG-passing topic, and as EEng has pointed out, having her listed in a table among all other 100+yr persons would be more comprehensive than a standalone where you have to use 15 sources to identify her place in that line. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And when she became the oldest American? And the second-oldest ever? That's already three events. Regardless, this is not the kind of person that the "one event" guideline covers. Longevity is an integral part of the person, not an event. And as I've explained above, it makes sense to have all of her longevity-related achievements listed in one place, and in any case, what's wrong with having a bit of extra information on this person? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Keep: Oh for pity's sake. Passes the GNG with flying colors, and that's all she wrote. I understand that EEng is waving around NOPAGE! with all the force and furor that your average American Republican politician screams "Liberal! Liberal! Liberaaaaalll!!" -- as if the mere word is a trump card that automatically supersedes all other considerations or arguments -- but sooner or later the fact must be faced that it's not that we don't understand his argument, we don't agree with it. The Knauss article is, I freely concede, poorly written and longer on irrelevant blather than on encyclopedic fact, but that's a content dispute, not an appropriate issue for AfD. Ravenswing 22:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, comparing me to Republicans -- now there's a personal attack! Unfortunately, the fact that you think that "passes GNG with flying colors, and that's all she wrote" make any sense shows that you, still, aren't reading NOPAGE, or GNG for that matter, which say:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. (GNG)

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. (NOPAGE)

Clearly, GNG isn't all "she" (whoever she may be) wrote. EEng (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing you've summed up the situation at Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People very well. The "NOPAGE" issue could have been resolved with one discussion/RfC/new guideline, but instead there's been a chaotic spate of AfD's of just about every supercentenarian possible. You'd have thought that these AfD's [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] would have shown quite clearly that wider consensus is in favour of keeping articles like this one, but apparently not. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that, that is, unless you look at the other 70 recent AfDs closed as delete, merge, redirect, etc. EEng (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of those comparable to Sarah Knauss? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're fluffy longevity articles saying little about the subject, puffed up by minutiae of the timeline of verification e.g. meaningless events like belated recognition of who was the previous pre-1885 person to have been displaced for the title by someone who was mistakenly thought to be the current record holder except for... EEng (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: @EEng, let's see if I can phrase this in terms unlikely to mistake. Yes, I have read NOPAGE. Yes, I have read your arguments. I do not agree with you. What about that is so hard to understand? I'm sorry (well, not that sorry) if you find the consensus against you bewildering, but it is obvious that many more editors reject your curious interpretation of that section as meaning "Any article that any one editor argues can be redirected into a broader topic must be redirected into a broader topic" than otherwise. I am among them. The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus runs against you. When it does, accept that fact and move on. Ravenswing 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of turning the page into a redirect is now 20 times longer then the article and contains about half as many facts as the article. The article has been heavily edited during the discussion so who knows what we are even discussing. Perhaps we should close this discussion down, let the editors who want to try to get this up to something that does not fail NOPAGE and then renominate for delete and redirect. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I withdraw the nomination for now. EEng (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming consensus -- before, during and after the article was expanded -- is that Knauss is unquestionably deserving of a standalone article. It's EEng who has accounted for 35% of the edits and has fluffed up the article with his endless repetition of the same rejected arguments he uses to attack nearly each and every editor who advocates for retention. The failure to recognize this consensus reflects poorly on the whole campaign against these articles. A speedy keep is the proper close at this point, though I anticipate further bad faith nominations in the near future. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still angry you couldn't get me blocked, it seems. I look forward to your popping up at various other discussions I'm participating in, though. Always entertaining. EEng (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious keep considering that this woman is the Oldest Verified American Person Ever. I'm thankful for the withdrawal of the AfD-nomination, perhaps you and your team could withdraw all nominations and refrain from making new ones? 930310 (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion should be closed as Wikipedia:Speedy keep in light of withdrawal. But as I said at the beginning of his overly long discussion WP:Snow was applicable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 8 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Jordan[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E. Subject of this BLP is only notable for being found guilty of one charge of criminal damage for which he received a 12 month conditional discharge. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is more like a BLP 0.00001E. Smashing windows doesn't get you into Wikipedia, unless there's more behind it. Fails WP:PERP by several light years. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neighborhood watch leader gone bad? NOTTRUECRIME, NOTPOLICEBLOTTER. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a big issue and on nearly every national newspapers front page and was significant in the local area as this person even stood as a local councillor. There are notable and reputable sources that verify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.217.5 (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is classic BLP1E and should be deleted forthwith. If window breakers are notable, then we will soon have a legion of articles on people known only as shop lifters, car thieves, barroom brawlers, muggers and check kiters. Plus the guy who recently broke my car window and stole $2000.00 worth of my professional tools. No thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1E. Szzuk (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 6 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 withdrawn. Redirecting/merging can be discussed through normal channels, and should always be considered prior to starting an AFD, per policy. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercentenarians from Asia[edit]

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

This list simply duplicates List of Japanese supercentenarians except for the short list at the end of old people who don't live in Asia anymore and are covered on other lists just fine.

The list lacks all credibility for it's title. The population of Japan is only 2.9% of Asia yet according to this list Japanese people represent 100% of the oldest people both living and dead in Asia ever. If this list is correct, major media should be digging into this amazing "fact" that Japanese genes are required to live past 110 years old and all other Asians are genetically inferior. I propose we delete this unless and until someone figures out how to cover the other 97% of the really old people in Asia properly. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for lack of a valid rationale. The accuracy of the list is not something to be addressed by an Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote means little with no answer to the rational given. It duplicates another list and is obviously and by design hopelessly incomplete and misleading. Needs to be TNT'd Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, where list A is a superset of list B, and A-B is very small, it makes the most sense to delete list B. Thus I suggest you withdraw this nomination and nominate instead List_of_Japanese_supercentenarians. EEng (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that but then we would need to move this to the Japan title. It's all Japanese. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. After checking that everyone on the Japan list is also here, we'd just redirect the Japan list here. This way, if (say) a Korean supercent is found, that can be accommodated. EEng (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does redirecting the Japan list to this article solve the problem this article covers only 3% of Asia? Legacypac (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a problem; the problem is multiple overlapping lists, so that the same person is confusingly duplicated here and there depending on the whims of people creating these lists, which slice and dice things in random ways. Someone looking at the Japan list might well wonder whether there are any supercents in Asia outside Japan; if we've deleted the Asia list, there won't be anywhere to look for the answer to that question. (I don't see any sensible place to redirect the Asia list if it's deleted.) On the the other hand, if we merge Japan into Asia, with a redirect, people get the answer to their question whether they're interested either in Japan only, or in Asia generally.

Honestly, this is another example of why there should just be one gigantic list of all supercents, which can be searched and sorted at will by the reader. EEng (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with an appropriate note clearly stating how Japan has all the "verified" superold, we can redirect Japan to Asia. I'll WITHDRAW and do that. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We follow what the reliable sources say and not the doubts of an editor. That there are no credible Chinese verification need to be addressed via reliable sources. Vivexdino (talk) 22:56, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professor A.L.I.[edit]

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

Notability? Aside from the article's problematic history (original article was an OM sock creation), the current version doesn't establish notability and uses several questionable sources (will post detailed source review below). I wasn't able to find additional reliable, independent and in-depth coverage about this artist. Needs further scrutiny. GermanJoe (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sources (Refs #1 and #5 are among the better references here, but they aren't sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG):

mostly an interview, short background info
Athenian School Blog - blog, restricted problematic usage, doesn't add to notability
reader-submitted content
only a short WP:MILL profile
interview without additional content
self-written article
I haven't checked every single word, but this seems to be an exact copy of ref #5 (??)
self-written article. GermanJoe (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jeremy112233: and @DESiegel:, so far the only other contributors in the current article's history. GermanJoe (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - nominated image for speedy. Pre-published images from the Internet need clear source information and permission from the copyright owner. GermanJoe (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently nothing to suggest better general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources listed appear to meet WP:RS guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"consider editing" i authored this page a year and a half ago as a draft, got feedback and posted it but was asked to find more sources and i did improve it. this artist is known to me and is doing some innovative things in Hip Hop Education, unique to the genre and seems to be in the vanguard of notability. OM approached and said that they worked with Wikipedia and knew how to post the article, and they did, that is the history of how this spiralled into a an article for deletion. If its deleted, I would like suggestions on how to improve it. Based on notability guidelines, and fanbase the artist qualifies and the articles in the SF Bay View, which is an interview, and in the Green Prophet/and Illume, are independently written articles about the artist. I'm a bit confused because it seems to me this artist is more notable than many who have pages on wikipedia and are not up for deletion at all. ookladamotookladamot ^Talk 08:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is probably still too soon for a Wikipedia article about this artist. I'd suggest to wait, until additional third-party sources become available (i.e. news stories, album reviews or other independent articles about his career). I sympathize, that it's difficult to find sources for regional artists in a subgenre, but the article needs such sources not only for notability but also to independently verify the article's claims. GermanJoe (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My edit to the page was to nominate it for speedy deletion. I appreciate the above comment by Ookladamot, so won't vote one way or the other at this point. If there person is indeed notable, I would add as many significant news stories about them as you can find. If those sources exist, then the person would be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 19:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"'Comment'" Thank you Jeremy112233 and GermanJoe for your feedback, please feel free to delete this site, I will continue to improve my article and do my research, there are many local artists I follow and there is great disparity on who gets discussed and not--I would argue that a vast majority of indie artists on Wiki now are probably not notable enough. I hope as I improve my article and add album reviews and other information from press that I can look to you both for advice on my writing before I upload it, thank you for your advice, it has been invaluable. ookladamotookladamot ^Talk 08:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.2.241.104 (talk) [reply]

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