The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 23:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional approval voting[edit]

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

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

Delete per WP:G4. Markus Schulze 07:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the reason for prior deletion no longer applies - this article was previously deleted, as it had insufficient sources, and was therefore deemed 'original research'. This is no longer the case, and while the article is substantially the same as before (because the method itself has not changed!) there are now articles and papers about it including one from 2014 regarding algorithmic complexity. In addition to this, it appears to fit within the project Elections and Referendums, as noted on its talk page by Number 57, which is aiming to, among other things, improve coverage of various voting methods. Felixaldonso (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Note: User:Felixaldonso is the re-creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new article is currently well sourced (issue raised in past discussions). The lead specifies it is theoretical and the fact that several people other than the inventor have published articles about it points to notability. Furthermore, the deletion discussions date back to 2009 and 2007. Things have changed since then. This is not the kind of repetitive recreation that G4 is meant to deal with. The article should be evaluated for its own merits. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the citations to credible sources that have appeared since the previous deletions: Noyster (talk), 23:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Felixaldonso & Happysquirrel. Subject is credibly sourced & notable.--JayJasper (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment large parts of the article's text seem to have been copied verbatim from this paper (Section D, on page 9). Or has the author of the paper had access to the previously deleted Wikipedia article, and copied it from there? What about WP:COPYVIO? Kraxler (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has now been reworded to address these concerns. Some of the wording was from the previously deleted article, however the age of the paper you reference is ambiguous, so the article has been changed. Felixaldonso (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Cox (politician)[edit]

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

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

Subject is not notable enough for an article (WP:NPOL) Frinton100 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A former local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate, failing WP:NPOLITICIAN. Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing, while Google returns nothing that indicates broader biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Run of the mill local pol. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- as we usually do for failed Parliamentary candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unelected local politician. Carrite (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obviously. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 South Americasian Cup[edit]

2016 South Americasian Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Obvious speculation per WP:BALL. It also seems implausible for such event to take place due to Copa América Centenario. Racer-Ωmegα 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Racer-Ωmegα 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Racer-Ωmegα 22:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Racer-Ωmegα 22:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obvious hoax is obvious. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I'm not seeing to suggest keeping and my searches found nothing aside from mirrors. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as obvious hoax —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 23:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Orton[edit]

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

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

Unsourced, not notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Article cites one source, which just supports his birth. Also, in November 2014, the rumor of a "Jasper Orton" being signed to WWE was debunked. Prefall 22:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.LM2000 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG, notability not inherited from family - starship.paint ~ KO 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - DISCUSSION CLOSED!, Jasper Orton is not an article anymore i've moved it as a user page where it was before sorry for causing trouble with this article but I thought he was an existing and notable person which turned out to be not true months ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethAdam99 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SethAdam99 You cannot close the discussion. Do not blank the page. Do not move it to some obscure spot. Keep it where it is located. Only admins can delete the page. Discussion are usually left open for one week before judgement. Bgwhite (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 00:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Book of Giants[edit]

A Book of Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article has been completely unreferenced for over 5 years. I can't find any reviews of the novel or any other sources that would help satisfy any aspect of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I completely agree, my searches found nothing good aside from amazon.com, goodreads, etc. but nothing even in the slightest good. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to author Ruth Manning-Sanders which could do with a bit of 'fleshing out' in its list of works. Was going to say Keep but have only been able to find one review[1] and one instance of it being used for school study [2] (incorporated into the article) which is unfortunately the way with a lot of English children's books from this era. (sigh...) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have found a reliably-sourced review on the Guardian & Observer Digital Archive, by Naomi Lewis in the Observer of 22nd July 1962, page 19: "A splendid jacket by Robin Jacques at once invites the eye. Of course, myths have almost always been unfair to giants: still, we could not separate them from nursery lore, especially when, as in several of these tales, they are merely kindly, stupid fellows, easily outwitted (but not slain) by some sharp little dwarf. Though some are from local sources, others are from as far afield as Russian Georgia or Jutland. But are they so different?" Maybe this could be added as a source if the article survives? RobinCarmody (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now we have two reviews which satisfies WP:NBOOK. And there is also a cover of a German edition of 1974 here. Kraxler (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reviews found by Coolabahapple (talk · contribs) and RobinCarmody (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) as noted by Kraxler (talk · contribs).

  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #2 says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Cunard (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• changed to Keep as it now meets WP:NBOOKS(hooooraay:)) thanks to RobinCarmody, have incorporated The Observer review into the article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NBOOK notability criteria are clearly met. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extensive commentary by Donner addresses arguments against deletion, which are slim to begin with. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge[edit]

Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or at least merge to Battle of Chickamauga - I see no reason for this to be deleted. This a Civil War battle in which 105 + people were killed on the Union side alone, and it was declared a Union victory, so obviously a lot more than 105 rebels were pwned, and there was a consensus on the outcome. I don't see any reason why it would fail notability - if you search for Alexander's Bridge + September 18, 1863 you get enough results to know it was significant.[3], [4] Jefferson Davis himself refers to it as a "severe skirmish" [5] —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It already has a paragraph in Battle of Chickamauga#Opening engagements: September 18, and I don't see it ever being called the "Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge", so a redirect seems pointless. However, a hatnote in Alexander's Bridge seems reasonable, so I've added one. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what kind of technology you're using to search with, but I found it referred to as a skirmish. It's also included in this book as such. [6] Additionally see link above where Jefferson Davis refers to it in his history of the confederacy book, as a "severe skirmish." —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be referred to as a skirmish, but where is it called the Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and if cannot be expanded merge all small ones into a larger list of "Skirmishes of the American Civil War", and keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I post this shorter version of a longer comment I made at another of the AfDs concerning the recently posted series of stub articles on minor Civil War engagements because other readers or commenters, and the person who may close this discussion, may not see the other versions of this comment in relation to the same proposal. A list of Civil War skirmishes, or minor engagements to be more complete, would be long indeed. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123, p. 719 states that Dyer, 1908 divides the military actions of the Civil War into 29 campaigns, 76 battles, 310 engagements, 46 combats, 1026 actions, 29 assaults, 6,337 skirmishes, 299 operations, 26 sieges, 64 raids, 727 expeditions, 252 reconnaissances, 434 scouts, 639 affairs, 82 occupations and 79 captures. I have looked carefully at Dyer's book and I could find no explanation of how he came up with these names for the various military events of the Civil War. I think 76 is too few for battles. Many of the actions not shown as skirmishes probably would have to be thrown into a list of skirmishes to be complete. It would be a big list, even if subdivided by states, and a big job. A list of a few of them which have been mentioned in deleted articles or stubs, which also may be proposed for deletion, would be too incomplete to be worth much. In this case, I think that the action at Alexander's Bridge should be include in the Battle of Chickamauga and Chickamauga campaign articles, and possibly even receive separate treatment rather than be relegated to some list of skirmishes or otherwise completely omitted. Donner60 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of historical significance beyond that of Battle of Chickamauga, so it fails WP:EVENTCRIT. All the information that is worth keeping in some form is already within that article. This is an example of breaking out articles further than is necessary. A redirect is not necessary because this is not a plausible search term. ~ Rob^Talk 04:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a close call but this small battle is already covered in summary in the Battle of Chickamauga article and can, and almost certainly should be, included not only in that article but in the Chickamauga Campaign article. While this might seem to indicate a "merge" would be the proper course, there is nothing new in this article to merge except the Confederate casualty number of 105, so a merge in effect would be a delete.

If we look only at the facts in light of the general notability guidelines, because I can find nothing that gives any guidance on how to evaluate this specific type of military event, we would have to conclude that this was a notable event. It receives significant coverage from reliable sources. Powell, David A. Failure in the Saddle: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Joe Wheeler, and the Confederate Cavalry in the Chickamauga Campaign. New York: Savas Beatie, LLC, 2010. ISBN 978-1-932714-87-6 has a ten-page chapter on Alexander's Bridge and some earlier remarks. White, William Lee. Bushwhacking on a Grand Scale: The Battle of Chickamauga, September 18-20, 1863. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beattie LLC, 2013. ISBN 978-1-61121-158-0 has a chapter "Alexander's Bridge." The important campaign study, Cozzens, Peter. This Terrible Sound: The Battle of Chickamauga. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992. ISBN 978-0-252-01703-2, has three solid pages and other text on Alexander's Bridge. Other sources cover it, if more briefly, including Alexander Mendoza, Chickamauga 1863: Rebel Breakthrough, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2013 and Steven E. Woodworth Six Armies in Tennessee: The Chickamauga and Chattanooga Campaigns, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.

A small Union force of just under 1,000 men held off the leading brigade of a Confederate division which was attempting to cross the Chickamauga Creek on September 18, 1863. Confederate General Braxton Bragg had ordered his corps commanders to cross the creek at four locations to split and defeat in detail the separated Union Army corps. Union Colonel John T. Wilder's "Lightning Brigade", who through private efforts were armed with 7-shot Spencer repeating rifles, defended a previous gap in the Union forward defenses at Alexander's Bridge along Chickamauga Creek. Along with the defenses at Reed's Bridge, Jay's Mill and one or two other locations, the Confederates were delayed in crossing the creek in force almost all day. The Union Army had time to consolidate for the main battle of Chickamauga which started the next day.

So why not have a separate article on this apparently important engagement as well as the other skirmishes or minor battles on September 18? I think they are integral parts of the Battle of Chickamauga, certainly of the 9-day Chickamauga campaign, and can be handled in those article. Reed's Bridge and Alexander's Bridge are already handled by paragraphs in the battle article, which as an opening engagements on September 18 section. I think these paragraphs probably should be expanded by a few sentences or another paragraph or so. I think some mention should be made in the campaign article of these and any other notable actions during the campaign that are not the subject of separate articles but appear to be of significance to the overall campaign and final large battle. If Bragg had been able to get his uncooperative subordinates to move faster, and Union advance units had not delayed them when they moved, the Union Army may have been caught in at least three separate locations in turn by the entire Confederate force. As to the importance of the action at Alexander's Bridge, Powell says at page 120: "In short, Wilder's stout defense cost the Confederates the entire afternoon...."

The September 18 actions have been treated in the books as implicitly or directly as part of the Battle of Chickamauga. They deserve coverage and maybe even redirects. Whether to include such actions as part of a larger battle or a campaign or in separate articles has no clear guidance that I know about, but I think that separate articles are the exception for actions immediately preceding a main battle. I would certainly argue in favor of keeping articles on preliminary actions like those that occurred on September 18, 1863, if they had occurred some days earlier and were not included in the larger articles or took too much space to adequately explain, but I think that is not a necessary outcome here. The only other alternative may be whether Alexander's Bridge and the other actions were large enough and there are enough available facts about them to justify a briefer mention in the battle and campaign articles, as they have in the battle article, but also a separate "main article" for these separate preliminary engagements. I think it is a close call here but I think it is proper to include the September 18 battles (and maybe some September 17 skirmishes) as part of the other Chickamauga articles without having a separate, and no doubt larger, article for each one. I say each one because although Alexander's Bridge may be the most significant, the others receive coverage as well.

I am not sure whether Alexander's Bridge is a plausible search term but I think in view of the coverage in several books, at least a few readers might look for the action under a separate name, but possibly not "Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge.

The 105 casualties were Confederate casualties. Powell, page 117. Cozzens, page 113. Dyer includes Union casualties in a total for the battle. I have not seen a Union casualty figure only for the action at Alexander's Bridge in other sources but it is clear from the narrative that the Union force did not eventually retire unscathed, after some Confederates waded the stream out of range and outflanked them. Maybe a figure could be found but an implication of lower casualties, as the sources appear to imply, may suffice. Donner60 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Too many of the keeps do not present an argument--"you keep doing it" is not an argument, even if true; "I googled it" is never an argument; "keep" is not an argument". Complications with dating signaled by Donner present good arguments for the lack of enduring historical significance, arguments which on one countered. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Alderson Ferry[edit]

Skirmish at Alderson Ferry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the other Civil War skirmishes you keep nominating that I keep saying keep on. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your measure of whether to keep or delete is based simply on the topic and the person nominating it? This alone should disqualify you from any rational discussion on Wikipedia. Could I suggest you actually read the article being nominated for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A compendium of the War of the Rebellion, Volume 1, linked to in the article, barely refers to Alderson Ferry. A historical marker plaque for Alderson's Ferry notes a small skirmish on July 12, 1862 and doesn't even mention the August 23, 1862 one cited in this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and if cannot be expanded merge all small ones into a larger list and keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be a long list. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123, p. 719 states that Dyer, 1908 divides the military actions of the Civil War into 29 campaigns, 76 battles, 310 engagements, 46 combats, 1026 actions, 29 assaults, 6,337 skirmishes, 299 operations, 26 sieges, 64 raids, 727 expeditions, 252 reconnaissances, 434 scouts, 639 affairs, 82 occupations and 79 captures. I have looked carefully at Dyer's book and I could find no explanation of how he came up with these names for the various military events of the Civil War. I think 76 is too few for battles. Many of the actions not shown as skirmishes probably would have to be thrown into a list of skirmishes to be complete. It would be a big list, even if subdivided by states, and a big job. Donner60 (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The lack of any evidence that would help us determine historical significance (casualties, specific significant people involved, or even a victorious side) can be taken as evidence that this is not significant. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. ~ Rob^Talk 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It rang a bell, so I ran a books google search on: skirmish + "Alderson Ferry". Here: [7]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Union Army; A History of Military Affairs in the Loyal States, 1861–65 — Records of the Regiments in the Union Army — Cyclopedia of Battles — Memoirs of Commanders and Soldiers. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing, 1997. First published 1908 by Federal Publishing Company. Vol. 5, p. 24 lists a skirmish on July 12, 1862 (not August 23, 1862) at Alderson's Ferry in which two companies of Crook's cavalry killed or wounded 7 Confederates and captured 12 horses. Dyer, 1908, p. 972, lists no Union casualties at a skirmish at Alderson's Ferry on July 23, 1862 (neither July 12 or August 23). No 1862 action at Alderson's Ferry is mentioned in Cohen, Stan. The Civil War in West Virginia: A Pictorial History. Charleston, WV: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1976. ISBN 978-0-933126-17-6 or Snell, Mark A. West Virginia and the Civil War: Mountaineers Are Always Free. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2011. ISBN 978-1-59629-888-0. http://www.civilwartraveler.com/EAST/WV/MoreWV.html#Princeton mentions a "bloody" July 12, 1862 action and states that both sides used the ferry to cross the Greenbrier River and occasional fighting took place here. The July 1862 action appears to be connected to no particular campaign because of lack of significant actions in the area in that time period as shown by Dyer. Alderson's Ferry is too far south and west to have been a location in the Second Manassas Campaign and July 12, especially, would be too early a date. This can be confirmed in Hennessy, John J. Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. ISBN 978-0-8061-318. The date apparently would have to be corrected to July 12 or July 23 - not sure which would is right since there is one source for each and no listing for any date for a skirmish at Alderson's Ferry is shown in Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123. Despite the fact that one source shows some casualties for a skirmish at Alderson's Ferry in July 1862, few other details can be found about the skirmish. It appears to have been a rather small, isolated skirmish connected with no campaign and of no apparent strategic or other significance with few details and no memorable occurrence to be found in the most obvious available sources. Donner60 (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator argues a. lack of sourcing and b. lack of enduring historical importance. None of the keeps add significant coverage (pointing to Google is just not helpful), and despite Donner's well-weighed commentary, even those comments don't convincingly argue, if they argue it at all, that this was an event of some historical importance. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Alcorn's Distillery[edit]

Skirmish at Alcorn's Distillery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not sure why you're nominating all these Civil War battles. All you have to do is look up the place name + date and you get results.[8] —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you added is for a non-free book. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. According to The Union Army: Cyclopedia of battles (the non-free book - search for "Alcorn's Distillery"), the skirmish involved 100 Union soldiers. From the snippet I can view, they took 12 prisoners without a struggle; unless one of them was Robert E. Lee or Jim Beam's ancestor, this had no lasting importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and if cannot be expanded merge all small ones into a larger list and keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I post this shorter version of a longer comment I made at another of the AfDs concerning the recently posted series of stub articles on minor Civil War engagements because other readers or commenters, and the person who may close this discussion, may not see the other versions of this comment in relation to the same proposal. A list of Civil War skirmishes, or minor engagements to be more complete, would be long indeed. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123, p. 719 states that Dyer, 1908 divides the military actions of the Civil War into 29 campaigns, 76 battles, 310 engagements, 46 combats, 1026 actions, 29 assaults, 6,337 skirmishes, 299 operations, 26 sieges, 64 raids, 727 expeditions, 252 reconnaissances, 434 scouts, 639 affairs, 82 occupations and 79 captures. I have looked carefully at Dyer's book and I could find no explanation of how he came up with these names for the various military events of the Civil War. I think 76 is too few for battles. Many of the actions not shown as skirmishes probably would have to be thrown into a list of skirmishes to be complete. It would be a big list, even if subdivided by states, and a big job. A list of a few of them which have been mentioned in deleted articles or stubs, which also may be proposed for deletion, would be too incomplete to be worth much. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The lack of any evidence that would help us determine historical significance (casualties, specific significant people involved, or even a victorious side) can be taken as evidence that this is not significant. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. ~ Rob^Talk 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of course there are sources, here: [9] it was a battle in the most well-written-up war in history. Please remember to follow WP:BEFORE before starting an AFD, or commenting in one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply counting sources does not address notability. In all sources that I've seen (and I did look quite a bit before commenting), this skirmish has a superficial mention and has no significant coverage. A small skirmish with no effect on the war for either side is not worthy of inclusion. ~ Rob^Talk 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. that being so, Why is this at AFD? Why can't the military history Civil War editors get together have a place and hash out what's a battle and what is a subhead or alternate name for a battle?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In a big conflict like the Civil War, company-sized engagements generally don't mean much or get called battles. In a smaller one like the Vietnam War, something like the (still larger battalion vs. regiment) Battle of Ong Thanh has more relative significance and coverage. A search on "smallest Civil War battle" brings up the Battle of Dranesville, which involved 9000 soldiers, so this skirmish is not even in the ballpark. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion does not preempt an RfC or the creation of a new policy to better handle notability for Civil War skirmishes in general, although I doubt that these pop up often enough for that to be worthwhile. As for why this discussion must go beyond Civil War editors, keep WP:OWN in mind. Any interested editor can and should be able to comment in all discussions. ~ Rob^Talk 12:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Close call. This "battle" took place near Monticello, Kentucky. With that information, a little more can be discovered about it. Union Captain Wendell D. Wiltsie was sent on a patrol with 100 men from three different regiments in an effort to find the notorious Confederate guerrilla, Champ Ferguson, who was executed for murder (war crimes essentially) after the war. Instead, Wiltsie ran into an advance party of 300 of John Hunt Morgan's men who were preparing to launch Morgan's raid through Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio according to McKnight, Brian D. Confederate Outlaw: Champ Ferguson and the Civil War in Appalachia. The Cyclopedia says the Confederate force was "said to be" Morgan's men. Morgan's orders and the beginning of his raid were about a month later so I suppose that these men might have been from another command but it seems Ferguson did not have that many men in his guerrilla force and it is plausible that Morgan had men in Kentucky earlier. There is enough information in the Cyclopedia entry and McKnight's book to write two or three paragraphs about this. Ferguson and Morgan are both notable. The affair is typical of the unpredictable raids, including guerrilla raids, that garrisons in Kentucky and Tennessee, had to cope with. Some stiff fighting and counterattacks ensued, as well as the Union force burning the still because they thought it was a hiding place for bushwackers. According to the Cyclopedia, Wiltsie's unit suffered 12 casualties and reinforcements sent to help him suffered 3 more. (I don't like using skirmish in the title simply because I think the reader may be looking for "battles". The various titles for battles, engagements, skirmishes, actions and the like in the Civil War seem to have been made up by Dyer in 1908 and I can't find that he ever explained how he came up with the distinctions.) I think this is a close call but since we have a little more information about this and there are some indicators of notability, or at least the potential involvement of the forces of notable commanders, I would keep and expand the article. I don't think this is true of some of the other stubs that have been thrown up recently, which I just discovered. I have commented on two others so far and I will look at the others over the next few days if they are not closed before then. Donner60 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't like the idea of keeping something that didn't have much of an effect in the military sense simply because some well-known commanders were involved. That would open the floodgates. We'd have to include the action (also in the Cyclopedia) of March 2, 1863, at Aldie, Virginia, because Mosby himself personally led 70 of his men against 50 Union troops. Again, no real significance overall. As a side note, the National Park Service does classify this in passing as "Skirmish Alcorn's Distillery".[10] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• By way of comment and not argument: Not losing sight of the fact that we are considering general notability guidelines, I think we don't need to be overly restrictive about articles concerning historical events if they have some coverage in reliable sources, enough detail for a small article and some fact or detail of interest. I did note that this was a close call; I just happened to fall on the other side for the reasons I gave. There are only a limited number of these small engagements in which enough detail to write an article can be found and something of interest or note can be said about them - and which cannot be included in another article as part of a campaign, the lead up to or aftermath of a big battle or in connection with a biography of a commander. (The number of Civil War engagements are somewhat more than 10,000 but available facts, and notability, would support nowhere near that number of potential articles.) The limited number of stand-alone articles that might be created and the facts that Wikipedia does not face space limitations and undoubtedly has hundreds of thousands of articles about minor celebrities, short-run TV shows, entertainment events, you tubers, garage bands and every athlete that ever put on a uniform in a major professional league uniform diminishes the floodgates argument quite a bit for me - and I guess I am writing this in response to that word. I suppose this is getting us off track and is not worth debating, especially here, and also especially because I think our views on these matters - and perhaps more importantly on each article on a case by case basis - appear actually to be quite similar and are likely to mostly coincide as they do on the two other AfDs in this series of Civil War action stubs on which we have both commented so far. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this is a civil disagreement, not a war. Stick around, though. Magnolia has a bunch more from the same author to nominate after the verdicts are rendered on this group. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment. I have glanced at a few of those other articles and suspect we will agree on most of them and that most commenters will as well. If any turn out to be keepers in my opinion, they are likely to be close calls. I noticed that the nomination for Action at Abraham's Creek was denied speedy deletion. Since I hope to do a reasonably thorough research job on each, I incorporated my research into the article. If it is nominated at AfD, it can be evaluated on the basis that it is about the most that can be done with the article (although there are perhaps two or three other books I might glance at). Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Donner60: It seems the primary argument here is that this battle is notable because one of its commanders is notable/interesting. Is that an accurate summarization of your position, and if so, how do you reconcile that with notability not being inherited? This is for clarification, not argument; I want to make sure I understand your position. ~ Rob^Talk 12:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not entirely. Although first I would say that I think that inherited notability would not apply to a historical event because the very participation of notable persons adds to the notability of the event because they help make the event due to their participation or involvement. I might be wrong but I think that concept mostly or entirely applies to people. So by way of made up example, Elvis's son who did nothing but work at an anonymous job and mind his own business does not become notable because of the identity of his father. Presumably because of this, the son would not have independent coverage by reliable sources of anything he might have done of any note except for his being the son. Here we have some coverage in sources about an event in which there was some fighting and casualties and appear to have informed the Union garrison of the presence of a large force of Morgan's cavalry in the area. While Morgan himself apparently was not present, his men were almost certainly there by his command and apparently with a purpose that resulted in a notable raid. The facts that this was an unsuccessful attempt to find the notorious Ferguson, but the patrol found what seems to have been a large advance party of Morgan's men a short time before the start of their famous raid, and fought off this larger group successfully, makes this event more notable than an ordinary minor battle, in my opinion. It also seems to be a good example, because of the additional facts that we have, of what garrisons in border states or occupied areas had to cope with from guerrillas and raiders. Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This fascination with the Civil War is amazing. Never have I seen so much well researched debate over a stub AfD (and the creator of this one left a trail of other stub skirmishes). Last April The Economist wrote this article about the US Civil War, stating "many Americans remain fascinated by the conflict. In 2002 the Library of Congress estimated that 70,000 books had been published about it, more than one a day since the war ended." Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A major problem with this type of trail of stub articles, regardless of the general topic, is summarized in the brief essay Wikipedia:Kittens. I will let that speak for itself but I do note that these types of articles present problems for reviewers and those interested in the general subject. The stubs may all appear to be on subjects without much notability or of any value as they stand, but the subject of a few of them may be notable and others might have some facts that could be included in other articles. Almost no guidance can be had from the articles. Reviewers must try to find out whether anything notable and significant can be found on the topic and decide what recommendations or actions to take (keep, merge, decline). My guess is that many people are not going to want to spend significant time finding information or cleaning up stubs that do not already have a few facts showing notability or interest and do not cite any of the references that might be found to support an article. And while some of the support may exist, it may not all be online. (I am fortunate to have quite a few books on military history, many on the American Civil War, and have access to Questia and JSTOR through Wikipedia.) I decided to omit an even longer discussion of this that I had drafted since I am probably approaching posting too much here already, even though this is related to evaluation of the series of stubs of which the subject article is one. Donner60 (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Sen[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC with only a single weak secondary source that says nothing about Sen beyond the single fact of his presidency of Sutradhar Kala Sangam. McGeddon (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This article needs some improvement, obviously. Perhaps Sitush or SpacemanSpiff can turn this turkey into a delicious centerpiece. There's some sourcing around that mentions him; unfortunately, the article is so badly written that I can't figure out what the guy might be notable for, whether those elections he supposedly won guarantee him automatic notability as an elected representative. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He is pretty much the equivalent of a councillor in the UK. That's a fairly low bar and I can't think of any article where being a councillor amounts to sufficient notability for inclusion here. The article is obviously a fan piece. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sitush is right, this is the equivalent of a local councilman, see District Councils of India for information on it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The position doesn't seem important enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN, which is an extremely inclusive notability guideline to begin with. Pburka (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did dig around but could find nothing that might boost his notability. The sangam is just a small-ish local charity and in any event notability is not inherited, so his role within it would not sustain this separate article. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish School Aid[edit]

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

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

The only link is dead. Google can find no evidence that this organisation exists and as an education advocate in Ireland it would definitely need a web page. The fact that an organisation promoting the Irish language doesn't have a name in Irish also sets off alarm bells for me. filceolaire (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. That one book reference is kind of a scam, and it's a common kind of thing in such articles--essay-style paragraphs with decent citations that explain the problem a club is supposed to address, but don't mention the club. That's what happened here as well. With that gone, there is nothing here, and I nominated it for speedy deletion, A7. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  12:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maek[edit]

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

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

Blatantly non-notable per General Notability and WP:MUSIC. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no evidence of the article passing WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC or WP:COMPANY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem to pass any notability guideline. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks substantial RS coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 20:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quirkyalone[edit]

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

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

Obscure neologism with flash-in-the-pan usage, now faded from the lexicon. While the article has some significant sources from the early 2000's, notability has not been enduring. Previous AFD closed as keep in 2009 before the concept of enduring notability was introduced. The Dissident Aggressor 19:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not sure what "enduring notability" is, but I think this ought to be deleted, pace Hobit, who voted "keep" in the last AfD but even their vote wasn't all that convinced. I think that a book here and a few mentions in a few papers do not make for encyclopedic notability; I see no evidence of widespread usage, let alone discussion of this term. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I will simply amend by first afd comment of "no evidence of widespread usage" to "no evidence of any usage". Beach drifter (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, there's no requirement for something to remain in discussion to remain in Wikipedia. Cited coverage shows notability, and just because it's faded from usage that doesn't mean it's no longer notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that as a neologism, it fails. The sources do not show that it has ever been in widespread usage or really in usage at all. They just mention the book or the website and describe the authors use of the word. Beach drifter (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - the walled garden fallacy of WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 04:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well, for what it's worth: [11], [12], [13]. These are not very in-depth hits, but they're from 2015. I don't really care if this is kept or deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources kind of illustrate my point. They show that the term exists and was used by the original author, but they do not show that anyone every uses it. Beach drifter (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakazam (Pleasure Island)[edit]

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

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

Article is unreferenced, non unique and doesn't meet notability guidelines. Astros4477 (Talk) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Such things cannot be notable without extensive, in-depth reliable sourcing. That's not in this article, and not anywhere else I can find. As far as I can tell the only thing that's been written about this thing is something about a safety feature, and that's not enough. Delete. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Appears to be a run-of-the-mill, non-notable ride at an amusement park—there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that would make this one amusement ride rise above the hundreds of other similar rides in the world. Everything verifiable in the article that is not personal experience is already included at the Pleasure Island Family Theme Park article. Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was an easy solution: the article made no viable claim of importance, nor were references provided that could support such a claim. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Thanhoffer[edit]

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

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

Re-nominating after discovering that the article was created by a repeat spammer, who may have been paid to create the article and/or news stories about the subject. Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. There are no sources that discuss Thanhoffer in a reliable manner in anything more than just a mere mention of him. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MedjetAssist[edit]

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

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

Classic passing mentions except for one local business magazine. Fails WP:CORP notability. Brianhe (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per my rationale at the last AfD: Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Other than the one article from the Birmingham Business Journal, all of the references on the article are either unreliable sources, promotional in nature, or simply passing mentions of the company, separate from the substantive content of the story. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concur with the nomination and my own searches in google news and factiva turned up none of the kind of substantial in-depth coverage in RS that would be required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erigga (musician)[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this musician is not notable. The sources in the article does not qualify as reliable and independent, also, an article with a similar title has been speedily deleted in the past, if this is a new version of the same article, then no improvements have been made. Stanleytux (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana gold[edit]

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

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

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

No evidence found of meeting notability requirements per WP:BIO or WP:SKATER for figure skating: assuming Ilana Gold=Ilana Goldfogel here and here, there is no evidence she has won any national championships or competed at the international level per WP:SKATER. A cursory Google news search reveals an arrest (for which the charges were dropped): a single, negative BLP event that does not constitute notability per WP:BLP1E. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I tried my best to clean it up and find sources, but no such luck. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Goldfogel is neither notable as a journalist, a figure skater nor as an example of continued Jewish name changing in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Xelef[edit]

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

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

No RS, none found through a search. Numerous commanders of this militia, this person is not known. Ism schism (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and possibly block the creator under WP:CIR. All his articles have either been WP:COPYVIOs, or they've cited no sources, or they've cited "Facebook" (not a specific page on Facebook, just "Facebook"). The article was also probably created during block evasion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - other issues aside (which could probably even have made this a speedy delete IMO), the subject seems to fail WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage" in WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to The Bunny Game. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodleen Getsic[edit]

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

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

Just a truly nothing article about an individual known in fringe circles for 1 event: an indie film that has a small cult following. Totally fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to The Bunny Game. While WP:BLP1E isn't exactly on point, as the redirect would be to a movie, rather than an event, the redirect would be helpful, as the movie is what she is known for (and is really the only notable thing in her career). Inks.LWC (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry sometimes my other personalities don't understand Wikipedia's ways. - TV ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.58.135 (talk) [reply]

I have struck the above !vote as an impersonation. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll give them a short 48 hour block and a stern warning. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Redirect to The Bunny Game as there's nothing to suggest good independent notability with my searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Bunny Game. The only sourced content relates to the film and can be summarized there. There's a decent New York Times article here but as that focuses on the film it would be better used as a source there. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L'A Capone[edit]

L'A Capone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minimally sourced biography of a rapper with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, whose actual claim of notability seems to hinge on an assertion of an "uncanny amount of notoriety on the internet" (as if it were possible to objectively quantify the exact amount of notoriety it would take to trip over the line dividing uncanny from canny.) All of the other substance here seems to sit on claims of a gang violence role in his death and unverified statements of what some unspecified people believe about it, and none of it seems to suggest any reason why he would belong in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete for same reasons mentioned by nominator. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  12:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists[edit]

Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

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

no evidence of notability. I see a number of mentions in G News, , but I can not find anything substantial. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm prepared to accept that they satisfy GNG, and, frankly, I think they are influential and important. They have, for example, influenced judicial reform [14] and are a "key knowledge repository" on the subject of judicial integrity [15]. Without prejudice to the question of notability, this seems a plausible redirect to its parent organisation, the ICJ, with mergeable content. James500 (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to International Commission of Jurists. It's a division of a larger organization. Our article on the parent organization doesn't talk about the Kenyan Section currently, but there are enough sources to justify a mention there and redirect. Not enough to justify a stand-alone article, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of 21 autonomous "National Sections" of the ICJ: our article mentions the existence of National Sections in the lead, but does not expand upon them. The main news coverage of the Kenyan section or "chapter" in the past few years was when they sought and obtained an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan,[16] which unsurprisingly led to a breakdown of diplomatic relations[17] : Noyster (talk), 09:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cable 7 Television[edit]

Cable 7 Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a defunct community television channel in England, resting entirely on a single primary source and written in a surprisingly advertorial tone for something that's defunct. This would quite likely be eligible for a properly written and reliably sourced article, but it doesn't qualify to keep an article that's written and sourced like this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I have grave doubts as to whether a defunct community TV station is notable, quite apart from ,the issue of sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BROADCAST "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable." Well, Leicester is not London. Besides, there is no coverage, only source in the article is the subject's own (archived) website. Kraxler (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hamari Adhuri Kahani#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Mishra[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. The sources only mention him in passing and a WP:BEFORE search did not provide anything substantial. Mkdw^talk 05:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mkdw^talk 21:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mkdw^talk 21:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Recent debut with a single song in a Bollywood movie. Here's the news google search on his name [18]. with that kind of attention, he is probably assured a contract for another movie. I think it makes sense to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject doesn't have enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV and we can't WP:CRYSTAL his potential future notability under the rationale he is "probably assured" another movie contract. See WP:ATA. Lastly, even if musicians provide music to a film, unless they receive significant coverage for doing so, they are not considered inherently notable for doing so. Mkdw^talk 18:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not using a crystal ball. Just going on the good reviews here: [19] and [20]. Nice debut.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources mention the individual in passing. i.e. music by along with several other individuals who have credits in the film. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But several have a paragraph or a sentence about him, granted, some like the song he co-wrote and sang, some don't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hamari_Adhuri_Kahani#Soundtrack and add one or two lines over there where his one-song is mentioned. He definitely doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO but some hits in RS are present and a redirect is better than delete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted as A7. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Harvey (Musician)[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, where the most substantive claim of notability in the entire article is an unverifiable POV assertion that he's "highly regarded". It asserts that he worked as a musician and composer, but fails to provide any real or reliably sourced detail about his career except that he's now a high school music teacher (my working theory being that the article was created by one of his students.) In truth, I'd have speedied this, but there's already a declined speedy in its edit history. It's still a definite delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unspeakables Crew[edit]

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

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

Article, relying entirely on primary sources (it actually lists "Personal conversations with Unspeakables Crew" as one of its references, but none of the others are any better), about a dance crew notable only for participating in, but not winning, a dance competition. The fact that you can point to primary sources to verify that a group exists is not what gets them into Wikipedia, however — reliable source coverage which verifies that they pass one of our notability rules is the ticket, but nothing like that has been provided here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-notable band, as per Bearcat, delete.Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Francis[edit]

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

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

It appears this article is not salvagable from its unsourced state as my searches (News, Newspapers Archive, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing aside from browser links confirming he exists. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete run-of-the-mill television journalist with no indication that he passes notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 9). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Delamor[edit]

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

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

Non-notable singer that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO should be redirect back to American Idol (season 9) where she was a semi-finalist. Aspects (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - all mentions in sources are in connection with season 9 of American Idol, so redirect to that article is sufficient. Clearly does not meet criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Melcous (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benelli CB M2[edit]

Benelli CB M2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No source verifies WP:V the notability WP:GNG of this prototype firearm. Google News turn up nothing, Google Books turn up no WP:RS references. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources are there if you take the time to look for them. This design folded in the late 1980s so it's no surprise that it's not at the top of Google News.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe the consensus is that guns.ru is a reliable source. As Mike said, the design didn't see widespread usage, and it was from a while ago, so sources will be less prevalent online than sources for a more modern project like the Metal Storm. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-djent[edit]

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

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

This is not a topic. Whatever things might be said to be leading to the djent genre might be called proto-djent but they are not a separate genre. Instead they would simply be the background to djent, a paragraph of introductory material in the djent article. Binksternet (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even djent itself has been described as a micro-genre for metal geeks, so the idea that proto-djent can be its own genre is ludicrous. Smaller than a micro-genre, I guess it would have to be a nano-genre. In any case, there's nothing in the literature about proto-djent being its own genre. Rather, the literature may use the term proto-djent to describe those things that influenced the formation of djent, that led up to djent. Binksternet (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Djent is barely notable in its own right; "proto-djent" is not a genre or notable at all. One unreliable source does not support making an entire article. 198.169.127.201 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no source verify the notability of this subject. Google turns up no WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A brief summary of a non-notable blog post. Both artists mentioned here are already addressed at greater length in the Djent article. This neologism also has too little currency to merit a redirect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot seem to find coverage in reliable sources. The blog counts for nothing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested nomination.  Sandstein  13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bass[edit]

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

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

The article does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability criteria. JAEVI (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is not notable. Text of article largely talks of work of his father, which does not make Jake notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  12:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AKMAL EYZAD[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Could find no signs to establish notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has not yet met the notability requirements for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nothing to suggest he meets WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete- promotional article about a non-notable musician. And what's with the capitalised title? Reyk _YO! 09:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarish Mitra[edit]

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

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

personal / promotional biography. The subject is not Notable MahenSingha (Talk) 15:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biography has been written from a neutral point-of-view. The subject has received coverage by many secondary sources, though only a few were needed to fill the information in the article. Guess it depends on one's definition of "significant". Chcameron (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced statement proving the person to be an outstanding CEO making him so notable. Simply advertising for self or owned company finds no place here on wikipedia.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe redirect to Blippar as he's received a lot of coverage for this (such as [Ambarish Mitra this but I'm not sure about independent notability at this time here (fades by page 6) and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a self promotion article. The author is SPA for Ambarish Mitra.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Promotional tone is not serious enough to warrant deletion. Available sources meet WP:SIGCOV. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to get some attention in the media, two of the refs in the article (Sunday Times and Evening Standard) look good. There's also Ambarish Mitra: From runaway teen to tech genius and entrepreneur (DNA India), A Year In A Delhi Slum (Fast Company), European tech: In Silicon Valley’s shadow (Financial Times), a Turkish source, What kind of start-up would refuse to sell for $1.7 billion? Just Blipp it (in Business Today), passes WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vanity Fair (British magazine) caricatures (1880–84). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Anstruther-Thomson of Charleton and Carntyne[edit]

John Anstruther-Thomson of Charleton and Carntyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I, too, like celebrated 19th century British gentlemen but I do not think that being solely a celebrated 19th century British gentleman can be a justification for an article. He is not Beau Brummell, after all, is he? The Traditionalist (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not finding much except passing mentions, but I would be rather surprised to find that someone caricatured by Spy in Vanity Fair was not notable at the time. I suspect I am missing something. PWilkinson (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PWilkinson: Many of these people currently do not have an article and I believe that they do not deserve one. This list has many redlinks and they most of them seem to be either minor sportsmen or minor socialites (there is, of course, the occasional MP and the occasional railway baron, who do diserve an article). Being a minor socialite could be enough for a caricature but is not considered notable, even by that time′s standards. And this is what this particular gentleman was.--The Traditionalist (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: if it is felt that having been caricatured in Vanity Fair does not indicate notability, how about merging the non-notable articles with the lists of caricatures themselves? In Anstruther-Thomson's case it would be something like this (though formatted more neatly):

Publication Date	Subject	Caption	Caricaturist	Notes	Pic.
1882-06-10	Montagu David Scott MP	East Sussex	Spy	S 403
1882-06-17	Mr John Anstruther-Thomson	Fife	Spy	M 0257; Biography Colonel John Anstruther-Thomson of Charleton and Carntyne VD DL JP (8 August 1818 – 8 October 1904) was the son of John Anstruther-Thomson of Charleton and Clementina Blair. He died at age 86. He would have inherited the title of the 18th Lord St. Clair on 10 April 1833, but for the attainder. Military career He commissioned into the 9th Lancers and then also saw service in 13th Light Dragoons. In 1860 the Fifeshire Mounted Rifle Volunteers were re-raised and the then Captain Anstruther Thomson joined on leaving the Regular Army. In 1866 [1] he took over command from the late Earl of Rosslyn of the same Regiment his father had commanded some half a century before. After his command he gained the rank of Honorary Colonel of the Fife and Forfar Imperial Yeomanry. He was decorated with the award of Volunteer Decoration (VD). He held the office of Deputy Lieutenant of Fife and the office of Justice of the Peace in Fife. During his life he lived at Carntyne, Lanarkshire, Scotland and Charleton, Fife, Scotland. Family and Children He married his first wife Caroline Maria Agnes Robina Gray (daughter of Reverend John Hamilton Gray of Carntyne) on 25 July 1852.[2] They had seven children: Clementina Caroline Anstruther-Thomson (died 7 Jul 1921) Rosia Mary Anstruther-Thomson (died 13 Feb 1956) Olivia Beatrice Louisa Anstruther-Thomson (died 17 Nov 1941) John St. Clair Anstruther-Thomson (4 Jun 1853 – 4 Jul 1873) Charles Frederick St. Clair Anstruther of Charleton (6 May 1855 – 21 Oct 1925) William Anstruther-Gray of Kilmany and Carntyne (6 Sep 1859 – 17 Apr 1938) Arthur St. Clair Anstruther-Thomson (19 November 1872 – 16 October 1904) He married his second wife, Isabel Bruce (daughter of Lt.-Gen. Robert Bruce) on 17 June 1891. They had one child: Rachel Jean Anstruther-Thomson d. 17 Sep 1968
1882-06-24	Capt Arthur Gooch	Goochie	Spy	M 0258

Opera hat (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Opera hat: This looks like a good idea, but unless we find more articles of people with a Vanity Fair caricature which should be deleted, this one's entry will look bizarrely unique.--The Traditionalist (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is a nice picture, but his career - JP, DL, Hon. Colonel is just not enough for notability. I so not think we go in for galleries of Vanity Fair cartoons. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan bakery[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and only mentioned in references ~GottaGoFast ^Stepitup 17:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately delete unless it can be improved as the best my searches was this and this and I'm not even seeing a possibility of local notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per User talk:SwisterTwister, very possible not stuff for encyclopedia, not that notable. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. Consensus is fairly clear that the article should is not suitable and should be merged, but as an aside, however, the current article does not even claim that this is a significant feature of midwestern cuisine, it claims that it's a thing in "small rural German-American communities". This is pretty specific and if we can find a place to mention this in the target article it should be given due weight (i.e. very little coverage). I would also suggest that the topic could be given more in-depth coverage in a more suitable article such as German American#Culture perhaps. This page should be redirected to any article that ends up covering the topic more than the current target can. Swarm ♠ 20:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wurst mart[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. No references; has been tagged for no references since 2007. valereee (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's some coverage in local press (e.g.[21][22][23]) and I found a mention in a thesis[24] but from what I can see, it's not really enough to be separately notable. Could it be merged somewhere, maybe Cuisine of the Midwestern United States? Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. I had looked into this before, and after further source searches, does not appear to have received enough coverage for a standalone article. A merge is a functional WP:ATD-M that would enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support Merge to Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. It does seem to be a thing in certain areas. valereee (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also agree with a Merge to Cuisine of the Midwestern United States.  Sandstein  13:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think that a merge to Cuisine of the Midwestern United States is appropriate, and I think that it is not easily feasible. The Cuisine article is about dishes, this article is about an event. That some type of food is the subject of the event can not equate it to a dish or a type of cuisine. It is also not clear where this should be added at the cuisine article. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker^talk 19:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power of the Sea[edit]

Power of the Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Part of a growing collection of articles all created to promote the work of Kamran Qureshi, this 23-minute video fails WP:NFILM. It has apparently been WP:BROADCAST, yes, but I don't believe that trumps our basic notability requirements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a researcher, just read this article and found it quite informative, infact fit for any encyclopedia and helped me in research. I believe our British Army have more or less same features. I can't see how it is promoting someone? Can anyone explain please?Flowers4mums (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The creator has also created an article on the series Har Dam Tayyar and that is where all these articles on the short episodes should be redirected. They are not independently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shawn in Montreal and Flowers4mums for your time. Articles created by me till todate have diversity in subjects like Motherly wisdom, living and dead personalities, good parenting, how to raise high performing children, young girls choosing their careers, human smuggling, emotions of transgender people, Army, Navy, Air Force, prostitution, music concert film and Importance of Maritime sector and so on... there is no promotion of any individual or company in my articles.

As part of wiki family, I respect all family members and their POV. Reference to my recent articles about Pakistan Army, Navy and Air Force, (Sons of the Soil, Power of the Sea, and Flying Tigers) as they are entirely different in nature, departments and operations and what I understand is, this is the reason why Avtek Media Group made separate documentaries and I have created separate articles as there is a need to justify with the subjects.

The Making show was made and named Har Dam Tayyar for TV promotions to explain audience the topics and importance of these documentaries. This is what article Har Dam Tayyar is saying. I recommend these articles should remain separate and all will have their separate notability. Trust me. Kind regards Talentforfilm (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many (or all?) of those "diversity in subjects" are simply topics addressed in largely non-notable Kamran Qureshi shows that you've created articles for. User:Flowers4mums is a single purpose account that had popped up at Afd to support you, using the same terrible English grammar as you, and I think you and the whole affair is fishy, though I'm not sure what will be done about it. Maybe nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talentforfilm.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seperately notable, even 'parent' article is full of dubious sources.Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, on that point, it's my understanding of WP:TVSERIES that it seems to trump WP:GNG. That if Har Dam Tayyar was nationally broadcast, it doesn't matter if it has reliable sources or not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, wait, the guideline does provide some parameters: "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone...a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage."Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken it to Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Har Dam Tayyar. Let's see what we shall see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete run-of-the-mill TV fodder, no lasting impact, no reviews, web searches for such a common sequence of words are rather useless, the refs in the article are youtube and vimeo. Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kraxler (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Rezza[edit]

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

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

There is just barely enough information in the article to suggest notability sufficient to avoid the csd list, but I remain unconvinced that there is enough notability here for the article to remain on site. I'll leave that decision to the community. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Very very weak keep I went through most of the refs. At least a half dozen have no mention of her (#s 1-3, 6, 10, 14). Another group are mentions in announcements of events, playlists, or blogs (#s 6, 9, 12, 14-16). I have no idea if these are RS (#s 4,-5, 13). The ones listed as #21 & 22 indicate that she was given an award at a music festival in Berlin (CTM festival). I don't know how significant this is, but the festival is ongoing so it might be notable. As an underground artist, the only sources are going to be underground sources, so determining notability is very difficult. For sure, though, the article should be edited to remove obviously non-RS sources. LaMona (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article references have been improved and those that were misleading have been replaced or fixed. Sol Rezza is an underground artist but with a mayor relevance in the radio art genre and experimental music genre. The article is being edited today to includeas much valid references as possible. Thanks for your input. Panz4_Troup%C3%A9 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panz4_Troup%C3%A9, thanks for working on the article. I still think it's weak, but still a keep. LaMona (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I haven't exhaustively looked at the references like LaMona but just spot checking some it's clear this article has changed a lot over the week since it has been nominated. I think it demonstrates sufficient notability for a keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the input. There are more references to Sol Rezza, mostly in Spanish language, Should I attach them to the current edition?. I do not want to overdo the amount of references in the article and already it has more than fifty references. I insist she is an artist mainly known in Latin America. in English there are not many references (she is a strong emerging artist in the English language scene) and that is why I am creating this page on wikipedia. I work doing workshops on women's work in sound and unfortunately there are very few references of these kind of works and artists on the Internet, mainly women working with sound in Latin America although they are recognized and well known in their countries and abroad. Thank you for your time and all your kind advice.Panz4 Troupé (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Panz4 Troupe - weak references can (and perhaps should) be removed so that the strong references are more visible. The references that do not mention her (if they are still in the article) should be removed. The references that are mere listings of performances can be removed if they are not essential to support a statement in the article. Where there are multiple reference for the same statement, it may be possible to reduce the number by selecting the "best" one. References in languages other than English are fine, so if there are stronger references in Spanish you can use them -- especially if they replace weaker references in English. Note that references to performances or works of hers do not support notability in the way that references ABOUT her do. So you should not overload the article with references to her performances, although some of those can go into the external links. The article is definitely improved! Good work! I've changed my !vote to "keep". LaMona (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Simonsen[edit]

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

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

Article is completely unsourced and does not appear to demonstrate notability. I've searched for sources, but all I can find is social media, bloggy things and sources that effectively just say what his job is and who he works for. I can't find any in-depth material that is actually about him. Mr Potto (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: lots of very brief mentions due to the nature of his job but no depth of coverage. Fails WP:BIO Vrac (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim to notability in the article. Only ref in the article is a resume at one of his employers' website. No coverage to pass WP:GNG, no significance to pass WP:JOURNALIST. Kraxler (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no need to wait 7 days after relisting per WP:RELIST, it's pretty clear that this should be deleted. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]