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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Odría Sotomayor[edit]

Enrique Odría Sotomayor (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 am bringing this article to AfD in hopes of stopping the edit war on whether the article should be speedied under G11. (Being written from a neutral point of view, G11 clearly does not apply.) Subject is probably not notable and just misses being eligible for speedy deletion under A7. —teb728 t c 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTADVOCATE. This politician still a precandidate of a new movement in formation, not yet a political party. The sources indicate as "precandidate" [1] (November 6), [2] (November 12). The Peruvian Electoral Office doesn't have an official statement about this person (see second external link of the article). From July he's collecting signs for the legalization of his movement, but don't have any progress. Also, the Google Search finds few results, confirming lack of notability. Until yesterday his Twitter account announced him as precandidate, but the uncomfortable situation in Wikipedia yesterday, changed his status as "candidate" without confirmation of electoral authorities. Maybe someone close to the candidate, maybe himself, tries to promote his precandidature. --Taichi (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Taichi is not even an English editor, he has made it his personal goal to delete this content. When you find many articles about a subject then it is found outside Wikipedia therefore valid. But just as stated before, it seems that autocracy is the dominating factor. WIKIPEDIA should be careful as a public organization that asks for public funds to have people with personal vendettas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.68.133 (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this article will be kept or deleted based on arguments about whether the subject is notable or not. Do you have anything to say about his notability? The closing admin will not be favorably impressed by your personal attack. —teb728 t c 11:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not yet notable under WP:POLITICIAN. It's simply too soon. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Launching a new political party isn't an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, especially when the party doesn't even have an article about it yet. But nothing else here constitutes a substantive notability claim at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he actually wins election to a notable office. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Women and their Migrations to America[edit]

Latino Women and their Migrations to America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced article that's written far more like an essay, or more accurately like the outline for an essay, than like a real encyclopedia article. An actual encyclopedia article about this topic might certainly be possible, which is why I'm not just speedying it outright, but it would have to be written and sourced much better, and titled differently, than this. Delete, or sandbox to allow creator further opportunity for improvement — but it is definitely not ready for prime time in this form. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now, per WP:Original research and WP:Essay. By the looks of it, the page's creator is a student, or at least someone with an academic affiliation. A rewrite is definitely necessary though. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reasons stated in the article's talk page. ----MarkYabloko 10:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for several reasons ... ((1)) after a review of available sources and coverage, I consider the subject to be notable (to me, WP:DEL8 does not apply): (a) here is a book published by Duke University (b) here is a United Nations publication that has a lot of detail on immigration of Latino women vs men, (c) here is an article specifically on the subject of migration of Latino women; ((2)) based on the availability of sources mentioned, the article can develop such that it will not read as original research (yes, there are possible reliable sources, so to me, WP:DEL6 does not apply). The nomination reason is unsourced, but this is not one of the fourteen reasons for deletion. Instead the deletion policy (reason #6) focuses on the impossibility of reliable sources for attribution; ((3)) this subject may seem obscure to most editors/contributors, but let's remember WP:NOTPAPER and realize that there is room in WP for articles that are tightly focused, they simply must be notable, as I consider this subject to be after my review of this nomination. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Well-sourced material on this topic should be added to Hispanic and Latino Americans. If and when the amount of material there outgrows the main article, then there might be a rationale for splitting it off into a separate article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyichukwu Chijioke Diru[edit]

Ifeanyichukwu Chijioke Diru (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 GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Merely belonging to nobility does not mean automatic inherent notability. Otherwise we would have hundreds of articles for Saudi princes and princesses. Ceosad (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article barely suggests notability, name badly fails Google test. LjL (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It looks like a scam or hoax. This article [3] confirm it. Even mentioned nobility is questioned. No verified sources exist at all. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with previous comments. FallingGravity (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Durso[edit]

Rodney Durso (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)

Notabiity: fails WP:ARTIST. TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete and Salt Sources are non-existent. Can't see how he is notable. Clearly fails WP:ARTIST. Delete and Salt.)) scope_creep 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - There are some sources, such as this in-depth article and these [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. - MrX 21:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment I think he probably is an artist, and worth of inclusion if he is going to that length to get his work and other folks work on scaffolding. He is clearly driven. Make mine a Keep scope_creep 14:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well he is clearly not notable as an artist, he fails WP:ARTIST by a mile. He's yet another snecking entrepreneur in the publicity trade, and the only possiblity of notability rests on the company. Twelve shows does not seem very many too me; in any case that would mean moving the article. The man himself seems very ordinary indeed, and the article is puffery.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I had a better read of the sources this afternoon. I don't think it warrants a keep. I just my vote back to delete and salt. scope_creep 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per the sources provided by MrX (talk · contribs). The Revolt Magazine article provides substantial coverage of the subject and The New York Times article provides nontrivial coverage.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rodney Durso to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Barely enough to satisfy my doubts about depth of coverage. Ceosad (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: Does not meet WP:ARTIST, but it could be very close. Current article should be edited to include sources found by Mr Delta13C (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that he fails WP:ARTIST. But I think he passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline owing to the significant coverage in reliable sources, which you have not commented on. Cunard (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Sheffield[edit]

Simone Sheffield (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)

Again, this is questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was only this and there's simply no signs of obvious improvement. It's also worth noting two accounts with "SimoneSheffield222" and "SimoneSheffield2222" have considerably interacted with this article. Pinging MichaelQSchmidt, Eusebeus, Crowsnest, Krano, S Marshall, Dan Murphy and Louisprandtl. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I did not find much background information about this person, but there are a few India-based sources that mention her: The Times of India 1, The Times of India 2, Hindustan Times, Zee News. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging interested subject users Yash!, Human3015, MichaelQSchmidt, Human3015 and AKS.9955. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INDAFD: "Simone Sheffield"

• Keep... again. Just as I did in 2009, I took what was nominated and gave it some regular editing attention. The COI contributor has been notified of our concerns and has not touched the article for over two years. An while Erik's concern about limited background info is a concern, background is not always notability and for non-contentious non-notability information we can use what Sheffield says about herself. As was spoken of in 2009, a quick search on Google News shows there are many reliable sources for verifibility of assertions, including the New York Times, Times, BBC News, Times of India, etc. More, according to WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability", and in understanding that the wished-for WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline, we do have many reliable sources quoting her, or using her as a source for their statements in a more-than-trivial fashion. And, as reflected in the article new bluelinks, she has (co)produced several notable film projects, satisfying WP:CREATIVE even in the lack of the wished for WP:SIGCOV. She does meet WP:BASIC and that kind of sits above the other SNGs in the notability pecking order I should think, specially as one does not over-rule or supplant the other... they work together, not separately. Perhaps Crowsnest might use some of these to assist in further article improvements? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of references and sources46.208.73.116 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's rationale. clpo13_(talk) 00:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are valid arguments for deletion as well as inclusion. However, there is no clear consensus to support either. The article can always be renominated in the future. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skene! Records[edit]

Skene! Records (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)

Seemingly non-notable and unimprovable article with my searches finding nothing better than this and there aren't even any signs confirming this label still exists and lastly this article has existed the same since starting in February 2007 (hardly changed much since then too). Pinging interested users Michig, Walter Görlitz and Chubbles. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, but I don't know why I was summoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you comment at these articles as is the case with Michig so I thought I would give you an early ping. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The label is defunct, but that's ultimately immaterial to its notability. I think this label manages to meet the closest thing we have to a relevant guideline for record labels, which is the part in WP:MUSIC about what constitutes "one of the more important indie labels" - that it is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable." Skene released records from Green Day, Shades Apart, Lifter Puller, Trenchmouth, Jawbreaker, Actionslacks, and Crimpshrine, all of which are independently notable and most of which had lasting impacts on the 1990s alternative and punk scenes. There's some fluff and stories which ought to be excised from the article, but the basic skeleton - the factual information about its founding and location, and its roster of artists - is readily verifiable. Chubbles (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, where is the better improvement including the better sourcing, Chubbles? SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I have spent enough time cleaning up articles to save them; please don't presume that I will continue to volunteer my time in this way. Chubbles (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Berliner Gramophone no longer exists either, but it is notable. Skene is important to the history of Green Day, and released records by several other notable bands. This can be confirmed by a cursory Google Books search. As such it is "one of the more important indie labels" under NMUSIC #5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It helps to do more open searches, e.g. like Skene Records Minneapolis or Skene "Jeff Spiegel", and I have added what I could find: it's all passing mention. The comparison with another defunct label, Berliner Gramophone, whose notability has not been questioned is a WP:WAX argument. Both Keep votes assumably quote WP:MUSICBIO #5, but that criteria is for musicians and ensembles, not record labels; they fall under WP:CORP, and this one fails. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm surprised this argument keeps cropping up every once in a while. As I have long argued, it is inappropriate to judge labels according to business criteria; musicological and pop-cultural subject experts ought to decide their notability. Bands are businesses, too, but we do not judge them according to WP:CORP. Chubbles (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Assertion of notability: "what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article." Please add them. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The label has a proven impact upon musical culture by developing and distributing art, as proven by the multiple notable groups. The label existed pre-internet, or at best just to the very earliest days of the WWW. As such sources are likely offline, but are aslo likely to exist. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I have added sources and find that subject is not notable. WP:PAPERONLY is a possibility, but until any of the Keep !voters add them, claims like "proven impact upon musical culture" is based purely on a WP:MUST assumption, and that's just not good enough per WP:V. - Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Defunct but notable. warpozio (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is in and by itself not an argument for keep. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non notable per consensus  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Vaghjai Devi Pune[edit]

Shri Vaghjai Devi Pune (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)

Per WP:BEFORE, nothing at Google News or Books. No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. No references. PROD was removed without explanation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We do not know anything about it except that there is a photo of it at the Commons. Ceosad (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Googling alternative spellings (Waghjai, etc.) confirms the temple's existence, but no evidence or suggestion of notability. No way to improve the article without published sources saying something about it. AtticusX (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AtticusX, thanks for checking alternative spellings. I wouldn't have known how to do that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also checked Shree Waghjai Devi Pune, which turns up a little bit more info but nothing beyond location information. Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gofer[edit]

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

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

This article reads mostly like a dictionary definition, with a bunch of random trivia added on the end (including various TV shows that happen to have included the term). In 10 years, this is all we have managed to come up with; it suggests to me that this article could never pass WP:GNG. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Esquivalience ^t 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge This is an obvious search term for a variety of possible targets including gopher, errand boy, aide de camp, personal assistant. They are all blue links and so should this be too. Deletion is therefore not appropriate and an alternative is preferable per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, what is the article supposed to discuss so it is more than just a dictionary definition and dumping-ground for trivia? And where would you merge it to? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, without prejudice to a future deletion proposal that can only be timely once there is evidence that a adequately focused improvement effort has been made (-- A decade is but a blink of the Wikipedic eye --IMVisionaryO-- , since WP is the (per Asimov, eventually-to-be-long-forgotten?) seed of the Encyclopedia Galactica. --) to discard any truly unhelpful material, find reliable sources, and seek help from experts on e.g. workforce structure who can tell us what formal job titles are likely or unlikely to "hide" the gofers behind them, and what degree of advancement such positions are likely to offer. (Should we believe The Devil Wears Prada is realistic? Is Tess in Working Girl a species of Gofer, and if so, can we document how much reality the film reflects? Does 9 to 5 reflect employees of low status actually being less dispensable than the bosses? Can we establish a list of captains of industry who "started out in the mail room"?) IMO, deletion would be grossly premature at this poingt; the next step should include efforts both to improve what is here and to identify on the talk page what is extraneous and why. The apparent informality of the job description is an unusual barrier to easy research, and that means the article should be presumed well worth the extra effort it may take to do it right, until enuf has been done right to demonstrate deletion-worthiness. A fair chance at improvement can exist only after the underbrush has been cleared away to expose fertile ground.
  --Jerzy•t 08:40 & :47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  
• Keep This is a widely used term but without a blue-link the meaning may be unclear to some people (or dismissed as a typo), the article has over 3000 reads in the last 30 days, so it is serving some purpose. It also has somewhere between 50 and 100 incoming links from the article space, so there is plenty of ammo to improve the article in "What links here". IMHO This is a simple refimprove and quite possibly WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I see no reason to delete this. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Courier. I would have said redirect to Errand boy as it's essentially the same thing, and we don't need two articles on the same thing, but since errand boy redirects there, so should this. --Michig (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to be just a dictionary definition, followed by some disconnected trivia about the word defined. SJK (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to courier. It's a valid search term, and maybe could be an article some day, but for now a redirect makes the most sense. Chunky Rice (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well known phenomenon., and merits an articles. There should be a wide range of additional sources. The meaning is not quite the same as " courier". DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRA[edit]

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

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

This article does not display notability as provided by secondary reliable sources. (Take a look at [10]--all trivial mentions by sources or blog comments.) Izno (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An engine for remaking old games. Most of these should really belong on the article of the game they are trying to replicate. FreeCol is another one of these, and those people who wrote it did not even bother trying to provide references. Too bad that there is no software notability guideline in existence. Clones are rarely notable on their own. Ceosad (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some links to secondary source:

• A review by TotalBiscuit
• An article on Kotaku
• Mention in an article by Rock, Paper, Shotgun
• An article on BetaNews
• A news article on Softpedia

IJK_Principle (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Actually, Kotaku and TotalBiscuit have made me somewhat reconsider this. Ceosad (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

• Review by Macworld
• Review by Downloadcrew

IJK_Principle (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, both articles are by the same guy and with same text. Even though it doesn't seem both websites are owned by the same company. IJK_Principle (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as News and browser found some links but nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A custom VG/RS Google Search returned me the typical Metacritic page, but there are no critic reviews or even user reviews. Other things I found are a Blue's News page, a foreign-language page about a mod for the game and the rest are just brief mentions. --TL22 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As there are no extensive reviews beyond TotalBiscuit's video, I have to keep my vote for deletion. Ceosad (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as teetering on the edge of passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. MacWorld looks good, but it's by the same author (Mike Williams) that a bunch of other articles on OpenRA are. Kotaku looks okay, though its focus is 50/50 on Tiberian Sun itself and the engine. Unsure how we treat TB reviews for RS purposes, but it's an okay supplement since he has credentials. BetaNews is not in-depth, I wouldn't call it a reliable source, and I can't find author's (Mike Williams) credentials. Gry is not in-depth, but okay otherwise. Softpedia is a download site and so interested in reviewing what they host -- I would class this as not really independent or reliable. DownloadCrew is a copy-paste from MacWorld, definitely unreliable. The rest are passing mentions. Overall, it feels WP:TOOSOON, but I expect major outlets will cover it at some point when it gets its 5 minute spotlight. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was effectively unsourced. I had to rewrite it. Digged a bit to find some quality sources even though that is not easy on the topic of game engine recreations. Matthias M. (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid those aren't quality sources. The couple the are reliable, are extremely short mentions. The others are either not independent or are not reliable (such as WP:VG/RS). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to apply the guidelines for video games on this. This is effectively a free software project. Compare it to OpenTTD, Stratagus or Spring Engine instead. Matthias M. (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic AFD error there per WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added academic sources and software metrics. Being featured on GitHub Showcase, the Mono project and Microsoft Developer Network should prove notability. The SEO optimized articles you found via your search engine are mostly download page click bait. The independent LWN.net and Phoronix are really valuable sources. I left Rock Paper Shotgun and Kotaku in for reference although they are very light-hearted and superficial. Matthias M. (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For GNG purposes: Delft and thesis are not independent -- they contributed to the project. Softpedia is a software hosting site that hosts the engine, they are not impartial and thus not reliable. LWN is "reader-supported", the author in question is not on staff [11][12]. Phoronix looks semi-okay, but it non in-depth and the owner is the editor, which makes for no editorial oversight. MSDN is a blog entry and not reliable. Mono is just a list entry. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to English rugby union system#History until such time as merge is done or notability requirements change. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute Somerset 3 South[edit]

Tribute Somerset 3 South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability and the levels at English rugby union system but do not feel meet they notability requirements for Rugby competition articles (or WP:GNG — Rod ^talk 10:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet the notability requirement:[reply]

Tribute Somerset 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tribute Somerset 2 North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tribute Somerset 2 South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tribute Somerset 3 North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I would ideally like to keep this (and related pages) for the reasons being that there needs to be some sort of reference and coverage of lower league rugby union which is not covered anywhere else. I agree that the Somerset league is not the most notable leagues in the rugby union system but then again there are plenty of wikipedia sports pages which are not particularly notable. What worries me most is that the rugby union notability rulings (laws in rugby union) are extremely limited - apparently if a league is not a top league then it is not notable. Considering the English league alone has dozens of divisions below the Premiership then all these pages would fail on notability. I would be worried that if the Somerset divisions go then all the divisions would swiftly follow (this has happed previously in other subjects like a chain of dominoes). What this page (and other pages need) may be more varied references as opposed to deletion. Perhaps another alternative is to group the Somerset league divisions into one page. If you look at the football pages they are extremely thorough and well documented - let's try and keep rugby union to the same standard. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I very much agree with Jgjsmith006. There is an argument for grouping the lower Somerset league divisions (and the Beds, Herts & Oxon divisions below the Berks/Bucks & Oxon Championship) into one page on the grounds that these two sets of county leagues almost exclusively contain reserve teams but apart from that ALL of the rugby union leagues should be kept. Rillington (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks both for your comments. I noticed you were the primary authors which is why I informed you of the discussion. I based this nomination on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability which says for competitions:

A rugby union competition is deemed notable if:

1. it is the top national club league competition of any nation,
2. it is the top national club cup competition of any nation, or
3. the competing clubs are wholly or mostly members of the top national club league competition.

Do you think any of these apply to these leagues? It would also be useful to make the case to keep the articles about these competitions in terms of the expectations at WP:GNG which suggests that they should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".— Rod ^talk 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guidelines are far too narrow and need rewriting. If such strict guidelines were followed on other subjects we would be having thousands of discussions, like this, on Wikipedia.Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As you say, those guidelines are far too narrow. English rugby union has an established league structure of five levels of national competition with a network of regional and local leagues which feed into the national leagues. Therefore all of the local leagues which form part of this national network are notable and should have separate articles. This is the accepted notability criteria for English football and this same criteria should also apply to English rugby union. Rillington (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% agree with this. Going by the guidelines there would be no pages below Premiership level despite the fact that there are notable teams in the Championship (2nd division) who have had Premiership experience (Bedford Blues, Bristol, London Scottish, London Welsh, Rotherham Titans, Yorkshire Carnegie) as well as other teams in both the Championship and divisions below who have won national cup competitions in the past (Moseley, Coventry) or famous local clubs who have hosted international teams such as New Zealand in the past (Redruth, Camborne etc). The guidelines have a closed minded mentality which is similar to that of Premiership clubs who very recently wanted to shut that division out to lower league teams - a move hugely unpopular with both clubs and fans and thankfully has been thrown out (though they may well try again). Anyway back to the point in hand, I would argue that any league competition in the English league system that is run by the RFU is notable as it is theoretically possible that a team from a regional division such as Somerset could be promoted all the way up to the Premiership as it now stands and in the case for teams like Jersey who have gone all the way up through the divisions to the Championship. In the case of Somerset if you remove pages regarding to that league then there is no reference points to fans from that region other than information relating to big teams such as Bath. I feel that people from Somerset (and other regions) may not even know they have a local team until they go to their town page (on wikipedia) and see a rugby team under the sports section and can then click on that link for the club. People may argue that a team (or league) is too small to be notable, but we may as well argue that town pages are not notable as well and nominate them for deletion (and so on and so on). Jgjsmith006 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best Merge, including the others listed by the nominator. It clearly doesn't meet any current guidelines, or the spirit of GNG. To be fair I think that more of an effort could have been made to get wider consensus when the competition guidelines were suggested at WP:RU/N, but that is the place to be having that discussion, not here. Where one draws the line I don't know, but it certainly isn't level 11. Many other arguments made above in favour of keeping this article are fallacious; notability is generally accepted as not being inheritable WP:INHERITED; likewise WP:OTHERSTUFF in relation to the comments about soccer; and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL deals with the argument that a team 'might' make it to the championships. Derek Andrews (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Topic is notable but sources should be improved Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Block evasion - Supdiop (T🔹C) 08:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the points raised by User:Derek Andrews and the nominator. The leagues do not pass WP:GNG as they have not had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a summary of the leagues, their place in the ladder, and a brief mention of recent promotions/relegations. The matches certainly get plenty of mentions in the local paper, though that said, plenty of things get a mention in the local paper that I wouldn't put on Wikipedia. Essentially, I think one article covering all of these leagues would be suitable, but I'm not going to be the one to put the work in to demonstrate notability and merge them all together, so I won't shed too big a tear if they get deleted. Harrias ^talk 10:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge into a summary per Harrias, with no prejudice against a review being conducted after an RFC is run on the rugby notability policy to assess whether lower tier leagues are notable or not. Blackmane (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Emmanuel[edit]

Anu Emmanuel (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 didn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Also her Film 'Action Hero Biju' is not yet released, its on the post-production process. So i need some editors suggestions whether it should be encyclopedic on Wikipedia or not. Josu4u (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing better. Pinging past users Reddogsix, Wikicology and Wisdom89. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks non-trivial support for notability. reddogsix (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I originally tagged this for speedy as it claimed no significance. Unfortunately, subsequent edits have not gone on to establish general notability. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, albeit on a weak level. Sources include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. These sources were all added to the article after all of the delete !votes above, except for the last one directly above (see Revision history). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Northamerica1000: But the movie that mentioned in the references Action Hero Biju is not yet released, also i heard that it's on the post production works. And i believe that, the article fails WP:NACTOR.Josu4u (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable and they need not meet any other criteria. Although I've not check if the depth of coverage in the sources provided are substantial. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The support given is no more than trivial. reddogsix (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article in Malayala Manorama provides substantial coverage of the subject. The coverage in International Business Times, Sify, and Deccan Chronicle, when combined, provides several paragraphs of coverage about the subject. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

  Cunard (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - An actor who has been active for less than five years almost always fails standards for notability. Ceosad (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Ivanhoe[edit]

Robert J. Ivanhoe (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The sources in this article fail BIO badly; the only in-depth source is a YouTube interview, all other sources are either mention in passing, niche trade journals (which have trouble with neutrality, and are not "mainstream coverage"), or clearly COI sources tied to the subject or businesses/organizations he is involved in. I reviewed argument at Talk:Robert J. Ivanhoe and I am not impressed; let me shot it down pre-emptively before it re-appears here: "He consistently makes the power 100 list of real estate businesspeople in New York." - so what? WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid argument, and being in the Top 100 of biggest random-type-of-profession-listing in a city, even in the Big Apple, is not a criteria of notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Power 100 things are single paragraph deals that I can't consider significant coverage. Several Non-RS and minor mentions. Not seeing significant coverage by third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ivanhoe has arranged some of the largest real estate transactions in the country, the "youtube" interview is with the City University of New York and not just some posting, Ivanhoe is one of the go-to guys that the industry listens to get the pulse of NY real estate, the firm he grew is one of the largest real estate practices in the US, and I am not sure why industry newspapers and journals are not considered reliable sources for information. The Crain's article strongly supports notability as does the CUNY interview.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally speaking, being the "go to guy" isn't what makes someone notable. Arranging big deals doesn't either. The deal itself could even become notable, but that doesn't grant an individual notability. Is an interview with a college coverage? That's part of the debate I guess. I'll be honest, I strongly suspect paid editing is in play here. Paid editing, in and of itself, isn't necessarily wrong, but it isn't a bad idea to disclose if you are doing that. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made over 20,000 edits to 3,725 unique pages which I don't think is a profile of a paid editor; also why would I add "Appeals Court Stays Malpractice Suit Against Greenberg Traurig" or spend an hour fixing broken citations on the entry for stoning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoning&action=history I just enjoy editing profiles and when I stumble across a nice news article or someone interesting I see if there is a page and if not I create it or add the article. This guy seemed to be notable enough (especially compared to all the porn stars and football players that have pages :-) so I figured it would not be a problem. I just enjoy the lay of the land in New York real estate and as I build profiles and such, I link them to other pages. Generally I am more interested in how they got their start in life but I clean up their career, add philanthropic efforts for balance, and family details for balance. Lawyers are a little harder to get info since their accomplishments are all tied up indirectly in transactions or in primary sources; and often NY people can get lost amongst the giants. The City University of New York is a serious institution with 500,000 students as is its programming. there is not much more I can add other than a bunch of articles by the New York Times and such which ask him to comment for a paragraph or so. People need to search his name w/out the middle initial as well though.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Number of edits doesn't tell me anything. Paid editors also edit as a hobby on things that interest them. And do you honestly think I didn't bother to look before I mentioned it? Nobody has said CUNY isn't serious and the number of students they have is irrelevant. The point you are missing is that those videos aren't really about him. In the ones I looked at they're mostly asking for his POV. I'm sure his POV is valuable, but that's not what matters. The standard is to be the subject of significant coverage, not a participant. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This entire video is a 30 minute interview with him about his life and career CUNY TV: "BuildingNY: Robert Ivanhoe" November 14, 2006

• After "over 20,000 edits to 3,725 unique pages", I'd think you'd know how to properly cite a specific video instead of just a page that lists every video he's been appeared in. That would simplify things. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I made a mistake when I shifted the direct link to the you tube page for the same video on the CUNY TV page since I was concerned that referring it as a "you tube video" implied that it was posted by some run-of-the-mill person. I meant to put the CUNY page with the list of videos down in further references. We all make mistakes.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is about him (and it seems it is), I don't think 30 minute documentary that received no critical coverage and does not seem to have been aired much is a source that gives someone notability. Bottom line is that CUNY TV is a university online/cable TV broadcaster ([13]), which I'd classify as local. Just as if he got an article about him in the CUNY newsletter or university paper, I wouldn't think it's sufficient to make him encyclopedic. To be notable, one needs coverage in non-local sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reference in the guidelines regarding notability that reference any distinction between local and non-local sources. So if I want to write an article about a mayor of a suburb in Chicago, I would need a non-local source, say in Ohio, to justify it? Patapsco913 (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that local coverage is not valid. That's not what Piotr is saying. It gives the appearance that it was made for "local use", ie, for the school. If a CUNY professor writes a textbook and it gets used at CUNY, it may be a very good textbook, but that doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, I just search his name and I get a bunch of references in publications like the New York Times. To me the fact that a number of articles mention him as one of the top real estate lawyers in New York City, that he has presided over some of the largest real estate transactions in the city, that he is frequently asked to comment on the industry by the New York Times, that there is a detailed interview by the City University of New York who clearly thinks he is important in the industry, and that he built up one of the largest real estate practices in the country (see the Crain's New York article: "Robert Ivanhoe has helped build Greenberg Traurig into one of the city's biggest and most active real estate groups"), seems to make him notable. Even if a BLP were to require a non-local source, do you not think that CUNY TV is at least a regional influence? We are talking about a city of 9,000,000 and a metropolitan area of 20,000,000.Patapsco913 (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• http://observer.com/2009/06/the-most-powerful-person-in-new-york-real-estate-you-sort-of/
• http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/terrell-owens-sues-greenberg-traurig-one-of-miamis-oldest-law-firms-updated-6554262
• http://www.nysun.com/real-estate/rapid-appreciation-in-herald-times-squares/52778/
• http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202728183718/Marketplace
• https://commercialobserver.com/2015/10/up-in-the-air-the-quest-for-quality-air-rights/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/nyregion/13madoff.html?_r=0
• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/realestate/commercial/23wachovia.html
• http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/madoff-scandal-shaking-real-estate-industry/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/nyregion/green-s-brother-helped-raise-672000.html
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406EFDC1438F932A15751C1A96E9C8B63
• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/01real.html?pagewanted=all
• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/nyregion/01hochfelder.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/13/nyregion/different-lives-different-politics-but-greens-unite-in-mayor-s-race.html?pagewanted=all

All of those are mentions in passing that don't qualify as in-depth coverage. Outside the CUNY TV documentary, there is nothing here, and I think we will need other editors' views on that particular source. Perhaps it is regional, and you are right I don't see anything in BIO that explicitly forbids it; however video sources are, in my experience, not seen as very reliable (but you can also ask at WP:RSN). I'll ping User:Niteshift36 who commented here already re his take on this particular source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point: that he is seen as an expert who the New York Times asks for commentary on the industry. They are not usable in the biography but show that the New York Times thinks he is relevant. I could add more but I figured that was sufficient. If we require a non-local source for all BLPs, we are going to have to delete a lot of biographies. I am was just browsing through mayors and politicians in the USA and a lot of them rely on either local papers or the local chamber of commerce for their only source. I really cannot see how that is Wikipedia policy given the sheer number of purely locally sourced articles out there. If I wanted to write about a locally businessman who was running for alderman in Chicago, I doubt I would find a non-local source; however, he would still be notable.Patapsco913 (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First, you misunderstand the use of the word local and second, as Piotr correctly points out, passing mentions mean nothing in terms of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure how you would define it. Anyhow CUNY Tv is "The largest university television station in the country" and serves "7.3 million broadcast households in the New York metro area" and "CUNY TV is the recipient of 14 New York Emmy® Awards, and other prestigious industry honors including the Telly Award and Communicator Awards, and a total of 56 Emmy nominations" http://www.cuny.tv/about.phpPatapsco913 (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to mayors, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. In their case, it is assumed that position of non-local cities is sufficient, through of course it can become heated for the borderline bios. And thus I am far from certain that your alderman in Chicago would survive an AfD. Anyway, there is no consensus on anything for business people except what is written in "Business_people_and_executives" section there, and that does not cover the current situation. There are plenty of AfDs where people show passing coverage, and argue that the subject is an expert cited in sources and thus should be kept, but in my experience this argument has not been commonly supported. Which means that you have to show how the subject meets WP:BIO, and again, it seems we have only one possible good source, the CUNY TV regional/local documentary. We need more opinions on it; I again would recommend you ask about the source at WP:RSN for extra input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videos are usable if the source is credible; hence one could use a video conducted by ABC News to note a statement by a person. That is exactly what I am doing here. I do not see how a program run by a university and shown on Public television is not reliable. http://thestolerreport.com/ Michael Stoler has a very good reputation and that is why all the biggest names in the industry are willing to be interviewed by him. If you go to the you tube channel you can see all the other people he interviews. As far as notability, there are three or four articles stating that he is one of the top real estate attorneys out there, there is the CUNY TV interview for his background (with Crain's New York Business and the Real Deal article for support), and then are a bunch of articles referencing some of his largest transactions. I have also shown that the New York Times recognizes him as an expert in his field. He has received numerous awards and recognitions. He sits on a number of boards. To me that sees sufficient to pass notability.Patapsco913 (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources seem to be basically mere mentions, so consensus is usually that we delete in such situations. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all found links but unlike the currently sourced article, there's nothing but passing mentions so there's nothing to suggest a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alex9777777 NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lovifm.com ( Radio )[edit]

Lovifm.com ( Radio ) (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 radio provider. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. See also WP:BCAST. clpo13_(talk) 20:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Logicequalslogical (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks to Cordless Larry and Checkingfax for adding sources. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic Society of Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

Autistic Society of Trinidad and Tobago (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)

Because this article has no references or sources, there is no evidence of organizational notability. If multiple independent reliable sources can be added, this article may qualify to be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a quick Google search indicates that there is plenty of coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have no objection to keeping if the references are added. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Cordless Larry added the references. (Speedy keep?) Ceosad (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep –  ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 01:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as the article is now extremely well-referenced for a stub. Thanks, Cordless Larry! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus to delete DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Kishor Joshi[edit]

Hari Kishor Joshi (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)

Dubious clains of notability, Google search turned up almost nothing about this person that wasn't promotional (e. g. Facebook etc.). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. vanity page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy of this version was declined (other versions with various capitalizations were A7'd). Going though this discussion process ensures any re-creation can be speedy-deleted on-sight and repeated re-creations by the same editor will be considered evidence of disruptive behavior. In short, letting this go 7 days now means we won't have to revisit it ad-nausium in the future. That, and it is remotely possible that this person does meet WP:N but has managed to keep reliable, independent sources that can demontrate it off of Google's top-20 list. I did say "remote." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article originally contained a somewhat credible-appearing source but it related to a different person. Thparkth (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I tagged it for speedy. But it was declined. Did not find any reference to prove that he is notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Completely unacceptable and apparently unimprovable as this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete - Completely acceptable and apparently improvable as this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.187.218.83 (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment: As nominator, I would recommend that the closing admin look at the state of the article at the time it was nominated and at the time of closing. If there are enough newly-added reliable, independent sources to suggest more time is needed, I would recommend relisting or closing as "move to Draft:". Non the other hand, if the newly-added sources either lack independence, lack reliability, or do not support notability enough to suggest that this person might be notable, then delete it. Of course, if the newly-added sources which are reliable and independent clearly support a claim of notability even if the article text doesn't include all of the claims, then the page should be kept and cleaned up (it seems a bit npov right now). Also note that the article has been expanded and references have been added since I nominated it and since the "early" AfD participants gave their opinion. There is no telling if they (or I) would have the same opinion if they (or I) reviewed it right before you, the closing admin, began the closure process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - None of the sources talk about him; they only back up his beliefs and the figure for whom he is named. Without sources, he's not all that notable. —LucasThoms 06:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - reaffirming nomination to delete article - I just did a cleanup and removed a lot of stuff that was not about the person. I also flagged some references as not backing up the claims and flagged one extraordinary claim as dubious. Because of that I added ((factual accuracy)) (diff). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utter rubbish. --Michig (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Tenray[edit]

Norman Tenray (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)

Entirely promotional, comprising a miscellaneous listing of random events. I tried cleaning it up, but in my opinion it's hopeless. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I guess he is some kind of business speaker making that spawn of trivial references easily come into existence. Nowhere near the worst WP:SOAPBOX I have seen, but I have to agree for the arguments. Depth of coverage etc. also fail with him. Ceosad (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with all entirely as my searches found some links with Highbeam, News and browsers but certainly nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. Has COI issues, article is full of PR fluff. Stuff like In April 2014 he hosted an event for the North & Western Chamber of Commerce where Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, Dr Ben Broadbent spoke about the state of the economy. is very unencyclopaedic and is only used to pad out what is effectively a pseudo-independent digital CV. Rayman60 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OBAS Group[edit]

OBAS Group (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)

Entirely promotional, comprised of minor events, and the firm's own praise of itself. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  20:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  20:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  20:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searches found nothing more than trivial mentions and there was certainly time for the article to have become better. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity page for non-notable company. Poor article, multiple issues. Rayman60 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to K3 (band) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanne Verbruggen[edit]

Hanne Verbruggen (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:MUSICBIO; most material I found online is Dutch yet there is no be-wiki article. I don't think there's a case for GNG here. This is one of three articles created by an apparent fan-account. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She fails notability. Logicequalslogical (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She has become a member of one of the most popular music groups in the Benelux. She was chosen in a televised contest that was watched by millions. She has committed herself to stay in the group for several years. If this article is deleted, it will be recreated within a short while and we will be here in an AFD-discussion again. So keeping the article will be the easiest way to let it grow into a decent article. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff5102 For this to actually be acceptable, she needs to have considerable coverage to suggest solid independent notability as per musicians notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 09:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yvon Dandurand[edit]

Yvon Dandurand (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)

Seems like a run of the mill Univ Prof, except for being part of a panel that discussed the She Has a Name play, which is likely why Neelix created the whole article. Basically a coatrack for the play he promoted all over the site Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article details a collection of minor accomplishments none of which add up to notability for me. He was a university administrator for ten years [14] but not at a high enough level (such as university president) to justify notability that way, and is apparently still an associate professor [15], also not a high enough level to justify notability from the job title. So we're left with looking to other measures like research impact (WP:PROF#C1) but again I don't see enough to convince me in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not done anything inherently notable, and he is not notable. Ceosad (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of sources here. Is on national radio as an expert here. His research gets much attention here, and he has been described as an "an international expert on human smuggling" by Canadian news source The Globe and Mail here. Meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Smurfs episodes#Season 5 (1985). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Smurflings (film)[edit]

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

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

Uncertain notability / genuine? Oscarthecat (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of The Smurfs episodes#Season 5 (1985); title of episode in that season, not a film, and likely that the "film" is just a non-notable DVD compilation title. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as proposed by Nate - Ceosad (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to K3 (band).  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marthe De Pillecyn[edit]

Marthe De Pillecyn (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 common outcomes (listed on WP:MusicOutcomesWP:MUSICOUTCOMES) states that band members, unless they're spectacular in achievements) do not deserve their own article. This may not even pass WP:GNG. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see enough coverage for there to be an article for K3, the referenced group. If the group is not notable, I don't think a member is either. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cannot see any sane reason to have all the band members on their own articles. Too little to merge into the main article, so lets just delete it. Ceosad (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly not independently notable and I found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to K3 (band). This seems the obvious outcome here. --Michig (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emaze[edit]

Emaze (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 small company (10-15 employees) does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The references do not support a claim of notability - they are routine articles that seem like they were just copied from press releases (one is press release itself). There also appears to be an aggressive bit of crosswiki promotion going on - the main contributors to the article are single-purpose accounts and the page has been repeatedly deleted on other language projects (w:es:emaze and w:pt:emaze for example). Deli nk (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: looks like an advertisement and single-purpose accounts prove that this is soapboxing. Ceosad (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : Universities and companies around the world use this service in multiple languages. Definitely has its place here. Gingimaster (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) — Gingimaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. I see the claim of widespread use, but I see no evidence of it. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches only found some passing mentions, clearly not yet notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Padda[edit]

Shan Padda (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)

BLP article about a CEO who seems to have no references for article that has been on the go since mid 2008. Can't find any sources, or any verifiable info on why he is notable. Being given a tech entrepreneur prize does not denote notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep 11:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: An article by a one-day WP:SPA who created articles on the firm and its CEO. A Highbeam search turns up a couple of routine sector coverage pieces, but neither these nor the non-notable awards mentioned in the article seem substantial evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and AllyD. Ceosad (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per consensus  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Plunkett[edit]

Arthur Plunkett (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 fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The main source used in the article appears to be a CV from a genealogy website, and is the only support for personal information in the article. A second source confirms only that Dorman Long & Co were contractors for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The third source only supports use of Radium bombs as treatment for cancerous growths. Other than the CV, which is a primary source, there is no support for the claim of his involvement in the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which seems the main "claim to fame". Internet and other searches find other Plunketts, but not this one, indicating that the subject fails to pass WP:GNG. AussieLegend (✉) 10:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete insufficient evidence to back claims in article. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I guess WP:1E would apply if those claims are true, and the bridge is more notable of these two... Ceosad (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It appears from the article that he had only a minor role in designing the bridge, & there sems no other basis for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suppose as I unfortunately found nothing at all and that's not surprising but that also means there's no obvious better improvement. I will say change to disambiguation page afterwards for the other two but simply not include this perhaps (I'm willing to start the dab page myself). SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bono[edit]

Christian Bono (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)

seems to fail WP:ANYBIO thanks in part to all of the "Citations" failing WP:RS Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No clear statements of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete: Serious issues. Fails notability, very nonsensical - doesn't flow, littered with errors. Perhaps written in good faith but it still seems like delete is the only option. Rayman60 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A very questionable biography. WP:BLP is being violated here too. Ceosad (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I think he does not have the notability criteria.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oye! Times[edit]

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

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

Not sure about notability. Claims to be a Canadian website Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Social network is no indication of notability. But still compared to the pages of reliable websites ( facebook likes and twitter followers of other reliable websites ). This website has got 18 facebook likes till date and 168 followers. Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a search in Google finds a massive spam attack, but nothing real. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - It is a news website. Not ordinary but a reliable and collaborative. It doesn't have widespread coverage in US or Canada but does report worldwide news from the primary and reliable sources of that particular country. Arjann (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This news Website don't have notability. Eden's Apple (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the keep reason given above is simply ITEXISTS, which is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now at best as searches only found their own articles, no considerably third-party coverage. Newspapers may be considered notable but there's simply no obvious improvement yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is clear enough after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Kumar (Advocate)[edit]

Prashant Kumar (Advocate) (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 a fatal lack of spectacular coverage on this man; he appears to be just another lawyer. He is not mentioned NOR linked in any of the WIkipedia pages for the organizations he supposedly had an impact on. This page is mainly nominated for deletion via WP:ANYBIO. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 16:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly WP:G11, the article looks like his own CV. MarkYabloko 17:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:Human3015. This is just a non-notable lawyer using Wikipedia as a platform to advertise himself. TJRC (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vance Dickason[edit]

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

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Simply being a technology journalist or having one trade association award does not make one notable, and the article appears self-promotional in nature. Rhombus (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Another clearly too soon as there's no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient evidence that he is a particularly important authority in his field. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:GNG. No secondary reliable sources cover this person where an article is warranted. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete -- GB fan 11:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loudspeaker_Design_Cookbook[edit]

Loudspeaker_Design_Cookbook (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 an article about a specialty trade paperback that contains nothing more than a table of contents and hasn't had significant activity since it was created in 2007. It looks suspiciously spammy in nature. Remember that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, nor is it a catalog. Rhombus (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pretty sure this doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). No citations. Not even a summary. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per all reasonings above. Rayman60 (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Migration from Latin America to Europe[edit]

Migration from Latin America to Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article mainly relies on primary sources, and seems to be a compilation of data that resembles original research. Furthermore, it lacks inline citations, and seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information. It also contains a quite a few peacock phrases, making me wonder about WP:NPOV.

It is possible that a legitimate article could be written on this topic, but this article isn't it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - if a topic is notable it's notable; there are entire books written about the subject.[16] Deletion is not cleanup. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of sources, including 23 inline citations at this writing. Needs cleanup, obviously. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the tags indicate, this article is problematic because of grammar issues and/or incomplete research. The subject is notable though and should be cleaned up. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's not a pretty article, but cleanup is preferable to deletion, as has been stated by others in this thread. Article meets WP:GNG; to delete the article now wouldn't prevent someone from writing about it again in the future. Better that someone improves and adds on to the existing article rather than have someone build a new article from scratch. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debtmerica Relief[edit]

Debtmerica Relief (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)

Company received routine listing in corp directories, "nth fastest growing" in 2009, and some local "best places to work" award; even the details of foundation and leadership are self-cited. Fails WP:CORP notability requirement. Brianhe (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Obviously not currently notable with no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non notable--and the references, such as they are, seem to prove that by the low ranking on the various lists . No significant coerage. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, article spam. Creator seems to have made a few spammy articles over the years, some of which have been deleted, and made few edits otherwise. Probable COI. Citobun (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Afterburn[edit]

WWE Afterburn (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)

A highlights show, not notable in its' own right. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Aired for three seasons in syndication, WP:GNG is easily met. No true reason for deletion presented. Nate • (chatter) 17:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep Meets GNG, WP:TVSERIES.LM2000 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Bottom Line[edit]

WWE Bottom Line (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)

A highlights show, not notable in its' own right. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It aired on USA Network and in American syndication, and still airs internationally. A mediocre WWE clip show, but it's on the air; that's all it needs to meet WP:GNG for me. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It probably meets WP:TVSERIES requirements for notability, albeit barely.LM2000 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Potential future success is no guarantee of an article, but it doesn't appear to be a hoax and references have been improved. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhtesem Yüzyil: Kösem[edit]

Muhtesem Yüzyil: Kösem (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)

Unreferenced, maybe hoax, probably without notablity guides. 333-blue 10:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not a hoax though, quick google search shows that. I also linked six other Wikipedia articles on the subject in different languages. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's not a hoax. This TV series is a sequel to another TV series titled Muhteşem Yüzyıl, and as you can see it has an article on English Wikipedia. The show will start tonight in Turkey. The article needs to get expanded. That's all. Keivan.f^Talk 09:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded it a little bit. I added links to other articles, new references, new categories, external links, etc. I think we can keep it. Keivan.f^Talk 10:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion !! Seriously !!! Strong Oppose. I just watched the first episode. Anyway, this is one of the biggest productions and will be a great success just like its predecessor Muhteşem Yüzyıl. And as I can see, its on IMDB and links and sources were provided in the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is notable enough. We can keep it. Keivan.f^Talk 18:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An article can't be created based off of possible future success. Ladygagahouse (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The series has already become a subject of huge interest among the pro-Arab viewers around the world. A lot of Turkish news references have been easily found when I searched it on google. I strongly recommend to keep the article according to Wikipedia article guideline. Sharif uddin (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First of all, it's already successful in the middle-east. Besides, a TV show or even a movie shouldn't always be successful to have an article in Wikipedia. We have thousands of articles about unsuccessful shows, movies, companies, brands, music groups, etc, here on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that they're not notable. Keivan.f^Talk 09:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on james[edit]

Come on james (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 Internet meme, only local (Hong Kong) coverage. sst✈^discuss 09:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just because it is in Hong Kong does not mean it is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because it is in Hong Kong does not mean it is automatically notable either. sst✈^discuss 08:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I suggested it was. However, you suggested it received coverage in Hong Kong only which was apparently a grounds for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said "non-notable" as in failing GNG. sst✈^discuss 09:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"only local (Hong Kong) coverage" AusLondonder (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Local notability is still notability. However, some of the sources are of dubious quality (forum entries) so some pruning of the article will be needed. Deryck C. 13:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is unnecessary to be deleted. Although it is not notable worldwide yet, its significance demonstrated on YouTube and in the city( it is now a very popular slang among Hong Kongers) prove that the article certainly worth existing.

Also, other pages related to culture or phenomenon only yet viral in Hong Kong are kept as well, such as the Bus Uncle page, the Kong Boys and Kong Girls, Hong Kong Cyclothon , Swimming shed and so on. The Come On, James article should be treated the same way. Besides, local notability is still notability.

And one of the main functions of Wikipedia is to get new knowledge, regardless of its popularity, known internationally. Or else, Wiki won't feature articles and news on its front page to spread the the knowledge to its readers. And the other name of Wiki is literally the Free Encyclopedia. A REAL encyclopedia contains every kind of knowledge, has no boundaries and does not cut out any kind of new knowledge that is not "notable" internationally yet. The Wikipedia should be the same.

Most importantly, the article is being testified to be included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong. If it's not for the representation of social, cultural phenomenon of the city from the article, it would not have been considered. Hence, there's genuinely no need for deletion of the article.

Terenceterenceterence1402 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliterate[edit]

Elliterate (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)