< 27 November	29 November >

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

The result was delete. I'm really tempted to not close this, so I can !vote Merge with List of articles with absurdly long titles, but duty calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, and SAG Award for a single performance in film[edit]

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

This is a meta-list article synthesizing other lists, but there's no indication that these lists (film awards for acting) should be combined at all. Unlike, say, EGOT, this meta-list has been given no basis off wikipedia. In fact, the reason it wasn't deleted last time (besides no consensus) was that a source gave it such a basis — but it didn't. This article is asserting that the five most prestigious acting awards are the Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and Critics' Choice Awards. The source does not support this assertion. It does mentions seven awards— Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, Guild Awards, the National Board of Review award, Independent Spirit and assorted "Critics Awards". Guild Awards when applied to acting obviously means the SAG, and you can reasonably take out independent spirit by clarifying it's non-independent film. But conveniently ignoring the NBR is unjustified, in fact the source gives far more weight to the NBR than it does to the Critics Choice.

It mentioned the latter as one of several critics' awards— "The key groups in the US include the National Society of Film Critics, made up of 55 writers across the country, the LA Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle. The London Film Critics' Circle, comprising more than 80 members, issues awards recognizing British and international film talent. In recent years, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has aspired to usurp the status of the Golden Globes, with a televised ceremony of the unashamedly populist Critics' Choice Awards." If you interpret this text literally then the key groups in the US include NSFC, LAFC, and NYFCC. Then it mentions London as a key Critics' group out of the US. But it reserves a different clause for the Critics' Choice—separating it from other critics awards by noting its "unashamed populism" (critics awards are noted for not being populist and for being impartial to commercialism unlike academy-style awards) and saying it wants to usurp the golden globes. A more lenient interpretation is that all the groups are key Critics' groups— but therefore by the source there's no reason to just include the Critics' Choice and not all the groups it mentioned.

Now I didn't want to delete this article, so I changed it to conform to the source it used— I included the NBR and all the Critics' Awards it mentioned, and noted that those six awards were the more prestigious awards for contemporary English non-independent cinema, so as to not generalize unfairly. This change (and here's the most recent version of the page in the same vein by @Heisenberg0893:) was admittedly awkward but at least it was based on substance.

My edits got reverted. The reasons for reverting my edit was basically that, if I may quote comments on the talk page, it "overcomplicated [the page] and made [the page] too exclusive" and that "NBR isn't a significant award". That's all good and well, but we can't have a preconceived list of performances in our minds, pick criteria around our mind-list, and then say lists that happen to omit performances on our mind-list are "too exclusive". I understand the article's purpose- to note the most acclaimed performances in contemporary cinema with objective criteria, but the criteria isn't objective if it's selected subjectively. This feels like a cruft list, not to mention SYNTH. Time to ping those involved in the original deletion discussion. @Feedback: @Jaxsonjo: @SummerPhD: @Postdlf: @Edison:. I'll put in a request for comment on this on related wikiprojects as @Lapadite77: recommended. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator demonstrates, the grouping (and in particular, the selection of the Critics' Choice award over all other critics' awards) is subjective and arbitrary. Here's a source that lists the "three most prestigious critics groups" in this context and doesn't mention the Critics' Choice award at all.
I did in fact find some sources that mention specific actors/actresses as having won these five specific awards – quite possibly inspired by the existence of this article; namely this source and this source. But I'm not very convinced by these sources, and any treatment of these actors as a group is minimal. (By contrast, this source clearly treats actors who have won an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for the same performance as a group.)
List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film, the twin of this article, should also be deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "cousin" of this page about television List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television. Anyway I also thought that New York Film Critics Circle and LA and National Society were more prestigious critics' awards, as your source says. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get what this article is trying to do, but it would better just to have an article "list of film performances considered the best", which unlike this article would apply to each mention contemporaneously without being biased by selecting contemporary film awards.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's another thing I'm concerned about, I don't want wikipedia to create "facts on the ground". None of your sources mentioning those awards grouped together precede the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. The EGOT is a notable concept. I don't understand the origin of this grouping of awards. Chunky Rice (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. This list is original research, and doesn't meet WP:NOTESAL. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. There is no general linkage of these 'off-wiki', which makes this OR and a bit pointless. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - super duper arbitrary 166.137.96.95 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if this gets deleted (as Sideways pointed out) then so should List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film and possibly this List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television (though the latter might need a new thread, but it's similarly arbitrary). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - EGOT is only combo of notable awards thus far —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actors and directors get nominated in multiple award shows all the time, it's nothing new or worth noting. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what all of you say, especially Blaze The Movie Fan post. Matt294069 is coming 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Hackers Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches returned zero, except for a few trivial mentions in Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, and the sources provided are not reliable or establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie C Rouse[edit]

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

No indication of passing WP:BIO or any of its included lower standards of notability John from Idegon (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO as mentioned above. Article creator is a corporate account, article's subject is either its owner or employee; WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY at work here. --Drm310 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not yet notable and no solid improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable; clearly promotional article. So he attended high school with a couple of persons with articles...who didn't? Fylbecatulous talk 18:06, 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. joe decker ^talk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EMedia Productions[edit]

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

Non-notable media outlet. Does not meet GNG. Sixth o f March 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found a few passing mentions, nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the two above. Can't find reliable sources for this one. 121.54.54.169 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Raj[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO and non notable musician. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There's no doubt that he is a devotional singer according to google search but as above fails WP:MUSBIO. I can not find any source that claim notability and also I can not find any news about his music release (if any). Singh (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage from reliable sources offered or to be found for this single-sentence stub. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Areas/villages are alwyas kept per GEOLAND (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ankutia[edit]

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

There is no notability. ~ Moheen (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According the the Bangladesh census, it is a population center with 1,874 inhabitants.[1](page 28) As indicated with WP:GEOLAND, population centers come with inherent notability. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:17, 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. joe decker ^talk 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Color Junkie: Shade Shifter[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article also currently exists in Draft space, Draft:Color Junkie: Shade Shifter, and was created by the same user. Salavat (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG with not independent, reliable, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After 3 relists there's still no consensus to Keep or Delete. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Jordac[edit]

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

Recently created article about a non-notable author whose only claim to fame seems to be a self-published book. Briefly mentioned by Iranian TV when he died, but still a long way from established notability. A quick Internet search did not yield any further indicators of notability. Jeppiz (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the self-published book, added yesterday by the same user, failing notability :[reply]

Needs investigation - the article about the book claims that it is very well known in the Arab-speaking world, with over a million sales. I do not speak Arabic to search for suitable references, but it seems that we should look into the question of notability beyond just English-language references. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, though I think the claimed sales are mainly for Persian, not the Arab-speaking world, if I understand the source right. It sounds surprising, and if it is true, it sounds even more surprising the English translation would be self-published; publishing houses would be likely to jump at the opportunity to give out a translation of a book that has sold that much. So of course it's possible, but something seems strange. Needless to say, we're not in a hurry, and if somebody who speaks Persian finds reliable sources of notability, it would of course change the situation. In English, though, there seems to be next to nothing. Jeppiz (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep George Jordac, not sure on The Voice of Human Justice. My Persian isn't too good, but I found enough articles in Arabic to convince me of this author's notability. See [2], [3], [4], [5]. An-Nahar and Al Arabiya, in particular, are high-quality sources. As for the book, I don't know. Worldcat shows over 100 library holdings in the US alone, and shows 18 editions, so I think it's unlikely that the book was self-published. I would probably lean on the side of keep. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 16:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 16:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 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 no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Doig[edit]

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

Declined speedy on the grounds that he is the founder of a notable organisation; however I doubt if he is independently notable. I would favour a redierect to Fully Informed Jury Association TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've done a bit of research on Doig. I would easily say that he is notable on various things. He was the co-founder and national coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association. In politics, he is a former candidate for the Montana Libertarian Party. He has published many articles that are cross referenced in the medical field. Also anyone studying judicial law is going to come across him and his work. It should also be noted that he is quoted on many occasions. Collectively on at least 5 different things, four of them discrete from each other, I believe he is notable. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While being a founder of an organization is a claim of notability that might get a person into Wikipedia if it can be well-sourced, it's not a claim of notability that gets a person any automatic inclusion rights just because he exists — and being a non-winning candidate for office counts for nothing under WP:NPOL. And the sourcing here is far too reliant on primary source verification of his existence rather than reliably sourced documentation of his notability — far too many of the "sources" are to the web pages of directly affiliated organizations, and the relatively few references that are appropriately reliable virtually all just passingly namecheck him rather than being about him per se. So he doesn't get to claim WP:GNG either. Redirect to Fully Informed Jury Association per nominator. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fully Informed Jury Association. The organization is notable, its founder apparently not. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'll repeat what I said on the 7th of November. I've done a bit of research on Doig. I would easily say that he is notable on various things. He was the co-founder and national coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association. In politics, he is a former candidate for the Montana Libertarian Party. He has published many articles that are cross referenced in the medical field. Also anyone studying judicial law is going to come across him and his work. It should also be noted that he is quoted on many occasions. Collectively on at least 5 different things, four of them discrete from each other, I believe he is notable. Take them into account. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to vote multiple times in an AFD discussion; you're allowed to comment as many times as you like, but you only get to preface one comment with either a bolded "keep" or a bolded "delete" vote and the rest may only be comments. That part of this comment, accordingly, has been struck out. At any rate, "quoted on many occasions" is not a thing that gets a person into Wikipedia, and being a non-winning candidate for political office is not a thing that gets a person into Wikipedia — and while founding a notable organization can be a thing that gets a person into Wikipedia, that's still dependent on his being the subject of reliable source coverage and does not constitute an automatic "keep because he exists" freebie if the resulting article has to to rely on primary sources and non-substantive namechecks of his mere existence for sourcing. He has to be the subject of substantive coverage of him in reliable sources to get a standalone BLP on here, but the sourcing present in this article doesn't even approach the suburbs of the type of sourcing it takes to get an article. If you want this article to be kept, you'll get a lot farther by actually investing time in fixing the sourcing than you will by simply repasting the same comment in this discussion over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks but I wasn't trying to vote again. Rather I thought that this being the last relist, I wasn't sure if It would be viewed individually so I put it in again. When I mentioned "quoted on many occasions", I meant that in different areas, medical, legal etc, I was trying to give an idea of the different fields he is referred to. There are a few! There are a good deal of secondary and third party sources for Doig. Yes there are more out there. But thanks for the pointer. As for repasting the same comment over and over again. I've only done it once and that's all I ever intended to do as this I the last relist of the discussion. Thanks. I will be expanding the article with what I come across in due course and always aim to improve. Karl Twist (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Applying WP:SKCRIT criterion one and three. There's no policy-based argument advanced here. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 00:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Roig[edit]

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

There no need to have article of every person mentioned in Forbes. Musa Talk 16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notable as a billionaire, employer of 74,000 people, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid reason given for deletion. And why are some editors so seemingly reluctant to familiarise themselves with WP:BEFORE? Edwardx (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BEFORE applies here. (I see he has articles in two other Wikis as well) Philafrenzy (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and let's make sure more information & sources are added, such as profiles in El Pais [6] and El Mundo [7], for English readers a Bloomberg report [8], and main subject of two books: Manuel Mira (2 April 2013). Juan Roig: De cómo Mercadona devino en imperio. La Esfera de los Libros. ISBN 978-84-9970-830-0. and Javier Alfonso (10 April 2014). Historia de un éxito: Mercadona: Las claves del triunfo de Juan Roig. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial España. ISBN 978-84-16029-10-5.: Noyster (talk), 18:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets WP:GNG. I can't even begin to comprehend what has lead User:Musa Raza to make such a nomination. Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 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 speedy keep. Applying WP:SKCRIT criterion one and three. There's no policy-based argument advanced here. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Roig[edit]

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

No need of biography of every billionaire of the world. Musa Talk 16:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. (I see he has articles in four other Wikis too.) Philafrenzy (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid reason given for deletion. And why are some editors so seemingly reluctant to familiarise themselves with WP:BEFORE? Edwardx (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thousands of Google News hits, including feature articles. Is User:Musa Raza a fan of an opposing team, and having a laugh? Nfitz (talk) 16:18, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ECW FTW Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

not a notable wrestling championship RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search brought up a discussion of the belt in reliable book references. A discussion of the belt is also prominently featured on the DVD The Rise and Fall of ECW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Quite a few reliable secondary sources as well. I added 6 more, but many others are available. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GCF did well finding sources; it was a world championship in the third largest wrestling promotion in the 90s boom, albeit an unsanctioned one.LM2000 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was contested on nationally syndicated television. McPhail (talk)
Keep per GaryColemanFan. Jacona (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tazz, an article which is not overly long and detailed compared to the significance of the topic, something which can't be said of this article. I would compare this storyline "championship" to Martin Scorsese's usage of taxicabs in numerous of his films: a recurring element that's important and should be evident to anyone watching, but how many people really care about such a thing compared to the prevalence in his films of the likes of De Niro and Keitel? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G11 (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moonview sanctuary[edit]

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

Unreferenced, looks like advertisement, fails WP:N. Musa Talk 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G11 as this seems applicable enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess[edit]

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

Not a notable book. Seven pages of Google hits found lots of publisher and Goodreads hits, but nothing reliable or substantial. The best hits are a sentence in USA Today, a mention in EW, and some mention in an interview with Cosmopolitan. I found no reviews, no discussion, nothing of the kind that makes books notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the first book in a new series for middle-grade readers, a spin-off of the author's wildly popular young adult series. This does not need to be reviewed like a piece of literature. It is reviewed in Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and it and the new series were discussed in the New York Times ArtBeat. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another book which easily meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. In addition to the reviews mentioned by StarryGrandma above I also found these (note to Drmies, I googled 'From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess meg cabot reviews' and got these in the 1st 4 pages (40 ghits): [9] - Commonsense media - "Cabot's tale of a mixed-race princess and bullying classmates adds punch and relevancy to the Princess Diaries series.", [10] - Natrona County Public Library - "What I love about the books is that Grandmere isn’t Julie Andrews in the books. She is not afraid to speak her mind.", [11] - Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books - extract of review. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- StarryGrandma, that books for middle schoolers should have different, lower standards for notability is an unacceptable proposition; even if it didn't run counter to common sense, it is in no way sanctioned by Wikipedia:Notability (books). Saying that "the book [was] discussed in the New York Times ArtBeat" is a half-truth at best: all it had to say on the topic was "...From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess, a new middle grade series, in which young readers will be shown Mia’s fictional country, Genovia, through the illustrated diary of Olivia Grace, Mia’s long lost, 12-year old, biracial half sister". That's it. If you have any reviews that actually discuss the book, not just mention it (and then go on to talk about the more exciting other book, speculating on whether some princess will lose her cherry in the ballroom--this is what the reviewers were interested in), I'd love to see them.
  Coolabahapple, nothing is easily met here. A one-paragraph review in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, that's something, sure, but that's it. I don't see why a listing on Common Sense Media would make a book notable: their job is precisely to rate all books, so there's no selection made--and making selections is the essence of matter. (Noteworthy books get real reviews.) Likewise, a review by a librarian for a local library, that's not a review in a reliable source that adds notability to a book.
  No, with the review from The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books we have one review, albeit a very short one, which counts towards notability. All other sources that have been brought up here aren't reviews, just mentions, or they're not real reviews in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, here we go again.... WP:NBOOK - 1. "1.The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." and the first 3 footnotes (as we 'keepers' have not mentioned any bestseller lists) - "1. The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. 2. "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source. 3. Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book." Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and the Bulletin of CCB are all independent of the work and have provided non-trivial ie. not mere mentions reliable reviews of the book. Which makes hmmmm, 5 reviews of the book. As for the put down generalization about the review by Commonsense Media - "I don't see why a listing on Common Sense Media would make a book notable: their job is precisely to rate all books, so there's no selection made" - going to its website [12] I see they have about 4,000 reviews, hardly every children's book (not even the number published every year?). As for the librarian's review, rather then another generalization, can someone please specify why it is not reliable (possibly lack of editorial oversight?). thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as for the statement that "All other sources (ie. Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist) that have been brought up here aren't reviews, just mentions, or they're not real reviews in reliable sources.", can someone please provide links to discussions that back this statement up? I have gone through the archived talkpage discussions of WP:NBOOKS and have been unable to find this, and have looked through previous afds and it appears that the general consensus (with some dissension:)) is that they are reliable and can be used to attain notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading my comment. I'm talking about the sources that have been shown to exist. No bibliographical information is given for Kirkus etc. You don't have to cite NBOOK for me, by the way (I've been here long enough), but thanks for the sigh. Now, if you were to produce these reviews and stick them in the article and use them to verify actual information about the book, that would be helpful. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here are internet pages that show the reviews - kirkus[13], PW[14], BookList and SLJ[15], as the nominator of this afd and a more experienced editor, I invite you to incorporate them into the article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I didn't say children's books didn't need to be notable. I was talking about how and where they are reviewed, not whether or not there are sources. This is popular culture, along the lines of Romance novels and Pokemon, not great literature. The book will not win a Newbery Medal. It has been reviewed by the organizations that influence bookstore buyers and children's librarians. I added the New York Times source because I was surprised that the Times was even paying attention. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've cleaned up the article and moved all of the reviews down to a reception section. There should be enough sourcing to show notability as a whole, although I will say that the reviews are mostly short trade-style reviews. Now as far as the notability argument goes for children's series, both parties have valid points. Children's books as a whole tend to get ignored by many mainstream RS other than trade reviews. I could probably venture some guesses as to why this is, but that'd be OR and a bit besides the point - the point is that coverage for these books are usually extremely light. It's fairly common for a series to be present in hundreds of libraries, be sold in multiple stores nationwide, and even have fan followings, yet still fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Ideally we would be able to take all of this into consideration when it comes to series/books that have a smaller amount of coverage (ie, a brief mention here and there and/or only 1-2 trade reviews), but unfortunately there have been enough people that have abused the system to where the guidelines have become necessarily strict. We do need some sort of guideline that would help keep the ones that do appear to be notable (200+ library holdings, sold in bookstores across the nation, have 1-2 reviews or other type of coverage in RS, published or reprinted through a mainstream publisher over a long period of time) and delete the ones that aren't (self-published, 0-5 library holdings, predominantly or solely sold online). Finding a way that would succinctly sum this up without leaving anything to be easily abused is pretty difficult and it's hard to get things passed at NBOOK because of this. However this is kind of a moot point since we have seven reviews (one of which is via Kirkus, which is of dubious reliability nowadays) and while they're brief, there's no consensus at this point in time that short reviews are unusable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 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 Speedy delete and salted per SwisterTwister Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apps Associates[edit]

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

Article created by single-purpose account with probable COI. Subject does not appear to be notable - zero Google Scholar results, Google Search results mainly social media, PR pieces, and otherwise non-RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Citobun (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as A7 and G11 as this seems applicable. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 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. joe decker ^talk 03:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yunmai Technology[edit]

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

Classic A7. Has been created and speedied at least once before already. Created in the first person as spam (still has the sentence "we also provide..."). Only sources are primary, i.e. the subject's own website. The other "sources" are only describing OCR technology and don't establish notability for the company. Thought about speedy again but since some work has been attempted, a discussion might find a more powerful consensus. Recommend salting as well if deleted. William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 12:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 12:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is pure WP:SPAM and was created by a person who was paid by the company to create the article (they have now created it several times so far) as described on their user page. The article does nothing but promote what seems to be a non-notable company. Support salting to prevent the continuous recreation. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A promotional article on a firm going about its business, but searches are returning no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and even SNOW delete perhaps as this seems quite clear and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block Judy Wangw for violating paid editing policies, but do not SALT this article as this topic could become notable at a later stage. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:52, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American University of Asia[edit]

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

Reason: mysterious article - even location is not mentioned —Loginnigol (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've gone ahead and speedied it on that basis, too. It's a something somewhere that serves as a board of trustee member somewhere else, except that individuals sit on boards, not organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, I've found at least one academic who claims to have worked at the American University in Asia in Sri Lanka. But I can't find anything else about it, so assume it was a short-lived effort (if it existed at all). JMWt (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problems in the article noted by the nominator seem to have been introduced during some surprisingly incompetent cleanup by a long-standing editor who, however, is not currently editing Wikipedia. Participants are advised to look at this version, which precedes the botched but largely justifiable cleanup - but whose rather different problems could probably themselves have justified being brought here. (Note that the Institute of Technological Studies, mentioned in that version, has its own Wikipedia article which, however, does not mention the American University of Asia.) PWilkinson (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've restored that version. If we're going to delete it, it may as well be judged by its most complete version. Very poor 'clean up' work indeed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found some old articles from Sri Lankan media which suggest there was a problem with acceptance of qualifications awarded by the American University of Asia in Sri Lanka (in the sense that they were not accepted abroad) - the campus in Shajah seems to now be the American_University_of_Sharjah and there is an American College of Sri Lanka - although those could just be a similarly named institutions. I've not been able to establish with any secondary sources that the American University of Asia currently exists. JMWt (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can find better secondary sources, I'm going to say delete on that basis. The page certainly does not seem to serve any real purpose as it is and there is no prospect of improvement without access to secondary sources. JMWt (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First Stable Version HERE from 2006 indicates that this entity is not a University at all, but "serves as a board of trustees" for two other educational establishments in other countries. No location mentioned. Let's just call this a big GNG failure and move along. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 17:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Comeau[edit]

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

Tagged for CSD G11, however the awards section suggests that there may be just enough notability here to let the article stay - with a major rewrite. Before we get there though we need to determine if the article should stay. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, I've worked a bit on this article in the past and I can see why someone might have tagged it G11. However, among his awards, he's a member of the Order of Canada. It's the highest Canadian honour for civilian achievements (you wouldn't known it from its article, which is saddled with the usual monarchal crap from a certain editor) and his Ordre des Arts et des Lettres from France is a pretty big one, too. Last but not least, the speedy nominator's "searches found nothing better" is baffling. A Gnews search for "Phil Comeau" yields good results: check it out. You've got to be able to read French, to be sure. He's a major Acadian filmmaker, whatever the problems with the article's tone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess WP:ANYBIO is what I was looking for. The Order of Canada and Ordre des Arts et des Lettres alone would suffice, though he has other major honours, too.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely some improvement needed here for both referencing and tone, I won't argue with that, but there's definitely notability there in principle — being named to the Order of Canada definitely counts toward notability, and there's notable film and television work in here. And I just did a ProQuest search, and did find some suitable articles to fix the referencing with there as well. Keep; I'll put some effort into cleaning it up. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can help, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yngve Kalin[edit]

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

Does not seem to have done anything notable. A quick Google search does not turn up anything obvious. The article is totally unsourced. Fails WP:GNG Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied by the article now, and am convinced that it passes WP:GNG. I withdraw the nomination. Thanks to Chiswick Chap for their work. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) The article is not unsourced, there are 3 links at the bottom. 2) Not done anything notable: he is correctly stated to be the author of the (controversial) Priest's Declaration (against homosexual partnerships) of 2005, as well as a leading traditionalist and chair of a Swedish national church organization. 3) He received coverage in Swedish national newspapers such as Svenska Dagbladet as well as church sources. 4) Notability depends on external sources, not on how well or badly an article is documented with such sources. In this case Nom failed even to notice the sources listed in the article, let alone look for others, most of which are in Swedish. The general point is that it is essential before nominating to see whether the topic can be sourced; it is not enough to assume that a poorly-sourced article is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I nominated the article, there were zero sources. What you refer to as "three sources" are actually external links, mostly associated with the subject itself. I am well aware that sourcing may be available on non-English speaking newspapers but I found nothing in a "quick" (emphasis on "quick") Google search. If the Priest's Declaration was covered widely in Swedish newspapers and commented on by politicians by all means provide such evidence and add it to the article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment at Wikiproject Sweden regarding this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your admirably civil reply. I have added 11 representative sources (there are more) to the article, but I must emphasize that this is not a necessary part of defending the article, nor of AfD policy in general. Your reply, I am sorry to say, betrays a misunderstanding of the AfD process. External links are indeed sources, and they did to a degree support the claims made in the article; I can confirm that they made finding other sources easy and quick. On foreign sources, English Wikipedia is worldwide and there is no prejudice in favour of sources written in English, though there are some here. Finally, I repeat (in the unlikely event that any other editors who think that "sourced" means "with little numbers already in the article" are reading this) that notability depends on the existence of sources, not whether editors have bothered to add them to an article, or indeed to place them inline as is convenient for everybody. Due diligence is required before going to AfD; this may mean consulting with Swedish speakers to find out whether a subject is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- While this article has a lot of redlinks, it is about a Swedish subject. The Swedish WP has an article on him, which has rather fewer redlinks: our Swedish colleagues seem to think him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not a clean-up service. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahar Mustafa[edit]

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

Almost all coverage about her relates to the BME only student union event she organised and subsequent fall out. The recent story about a likely spoofed email to Pamela Geller has had minimal reliable source coverage. [16]. The article used Breitbart and Huffpo Young Voices as sources for this controversy. General consensus is that Breitbart is not reliable. Huffpo Young Voices, seems to be a blogging platform for student writers and is described as a blog on its twitter account.[17] Brustopher (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. I think WP:BIO1E basically applies here, unless she does something else -- good or ill -- down the road that would make a case for something akin to lasting notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Graham (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO1E CambodianSandwich (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. The challenge was made that this person is not notable. Gene93k has linked sources that conclusively prove otherwise, and there is no need for anyone else to pile on.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nels J. Smith[edit]

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

A very short Unnoticeable BLP, and poorly sourced with no value to be included in an encyclopedia. having no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, a recently created article with no significant history page written by article subject. DaeafcMnnC (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - as it fails WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaeafcMnnC (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please note that the "supposed" WP:POLITICIANS was active from 1963 to 1979 only, and his 76-year-old retired BLP was wrote this year 2015‎ !!?--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is relevant how? Notability is not temporary. It does not expire when a politician retires from politics. The systemic bias against topics from before 1994 is not grounds for exclusion. Neither does the fact that it took 14 years for someone to get around to writing about the subject in Wikipedia. The article is a stub, but sufficient reliable source coverage to improve the article appears to exist. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to understand what i have said, the relevance is that there is no WP:Notability at all! i didn't said: Notability is temporary i said there is no WP:Notability.
it took 14 years for someone to get around to write about? well the thing is that the subject was written by the article subject! which meet WP:COI?--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that the article was written by the subject. The article's edit history says it was created by Connormah (talk · contribs) a Wikipedia admin with 85989 edits since 2006-07-26. The claim of COI lacks evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - satisfies (1) of WP:POLITICIANS. Due to the era, online sources may be few, but having served 16 years as a state legislator, he's bound to be notable. The article has possibilities, it's just a matter of scrounging up some (most likely offline) sources.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He clearly meets our notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. Since he was Speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives, a search of Wyoming newspapers will inevitably yield plenty of coverage. The article should be expanded and improved, not deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I contested the PROD. As other editors noted, the subject passes the WP:POLITICIAN guideline. A quick search for reliable sources yielded some relevant hits: [18], [19]. Other issues like being a stub ~~or an autobiography~~ are to be fixed by editing. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. The nominator's assertion that the article was written by the subject does not appear to be true. The creator is an admin who has been on Wikipedia since 2006. The stub was created because the subject is notable and should be included. Also WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid reason to delete. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note: a recently created page with no significant history, when i first propose it for deletion it has only one significant edit history, while the other one is infobox edit that means two edit history since its creation--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. the only source they are giving is an old source which is more like a yellow page and is even contradicting the BLP date of birth that they originally added!!--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still more. Please note that the nominator has twice reverted attempts to add sources and content to the article. This and other behavior by the nominator is forming a disturbing pattern. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the source they gave is even contradicting the BLP date of birth that they originally added!! This and other behavior by the opposer is forming a disruption.--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328 WP:Politician-thank you-RFD (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives? Sounds pretty notable to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. "no value to be included in an encyclopedia" is not a valid delete reason. Connormah (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN notability requirements. clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember this guy..per WP:POLITICIAN all looks good -- Moxy (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets WP:POLITICIAN. BTW the age of a source - as long as it is verifiable has no bearing on whether an article should be kept or not. MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous comments that he meets political notability guidelines as a member (and speaker) of a state legislature. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – How is there any doubt about the notability of a speaker of a house of an American state legislature? Graham (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio of walkthrough material. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Qin walkthrough[edit]

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

This is a video game walkthrough, not an article. BeowulfBrower (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per submitter Lor^Talk 07:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not a video game guide. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE --The1337gamer (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. Prince of Qin (video game) already exists so nothing to salvage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant and obvious WP:GAMECRUFT. --TL22 (talk) 13:14, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OWASP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy was removed by Feezo so here we are and I echo my comments before for this being questionably notable and improvable as the best links I found was only here, here, here and here but none of it seems convincing enough of a better article. It's worth noting the two products (listed at the side) were also deleted at separately timed AfDs (2009 and 2012) so I'm not entirely sure if this one is solidly keepable. Notifying past users and taggers Widefox, SarekOfVulcan and Richhoncho SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete blatant promo (-1) WP:NOTPROMO together with borderline notability WP:GNG WP:CORP WP:CORPDEPTH (+0.5). There's sources at my first AfD, may be WP:TOOSOON, or just a case of all the promo needing WP:TNT to start over. (Note many COI editors and SPA accounts on talk) Widefox; talk 07:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with rewrite. The article has no citations and is written like an advertisment, although I think that the topic is notable and has been featured in secondary sources (although to an extent that we would ahve to crop some of the information). There is no rule against referenceing homepages where other sources exist, and there is alos no rule that says a bad article is one for deltion. RailwayScientist (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? Articles with no citations get deleted as failing WP:GNG. Promo articles like this can get deleted per WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OWASP's material is surely basic reference for anyone working in web development or security, so I am surprised to see the organisation here. However, an "it's notable" argument is clearly inappropriate; I have added various book and publication references into the article as references. One can also find OWASP being referenced by UK government advice and by the UK Information Commissioner. All in all, for me there is enough to pass WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd rather keep this mess than WP:TNT? So who's ever going to fix it - it's been years and got worse. Although WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, I've never seen this many WP:SPA editors shoot themselves in the foot. In principle this should be a notable organisation, I agree, but I didn't even get a straight answer on the talk to what sort and this EXT link promo SPA farm is just a mess. Would you stub it? If kept, can we agree to be more strict about COI editors disclosing and edit requesting on the talk. There's 20-30 or more SPAs on this! Widefox; talk 09:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at minimum I would expect to keep sufficient on the organisation to meet an encyclopaedia user's "who?" query (e.g. after reading that ICO document) and enough to meet a basic "what?" query, which for me would be the OWASP Top Ten paragraph, plus probably those on the ASVS and the Testing Guide. Detail on tools such as ZAP and Webgoat are less important and can be found by the interested user on the OWASP site itself. So losing the Chapters section and pruning the Projects section would create a sufficiently improved article in my view. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to stub it, I will change to weak keep. Widefox; talk 09:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in others' input on whether the suggested changes are appropriate, so after allowing an interval, I'll probably apply a WP:BOLD edit along these lines. As to the article's future, I take your point about the risk of it being weighed down by COI edits. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been on my TODO list for quite some time. I've worked in security and found OWASP a useful reference. Granted, it is not well written, but I will, in time, get to it. I have texts with some info for citation. Softtest123 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we rewrite the advertisement-like sentences (specifically removing the mention of the non-profit organization in the lede, or perhaps moving it to the end of the article), this could be a useful article. The subject is in itself useful and notable, it's just that the article for it needs a little work. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite. I am one of those geeks with a CISSP certification, & I can tell you that this is an organization that produces research & software that is valuable to the computer security community. While the article can use additional citations, the thirteen citations establish notability, particularly in its field of knowledge. Lose the promo, not the article. There is no need to throw out this baby with the bathwater. Peaceray (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Upon further investigation, it appears that I'm the guilty party here, who pulled this out of a candidates list and spun it off to a standalone article for some mystifying reason I have no recollection of — but I remain the only substantive author since that time, so I'm going to just speedy it G7. (The original redirect also appears to be blocking a potentially more notable person of the same name, so just recreating that isn't suitable.) Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

André Leroux[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable as a small-town (2K) mayor and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While there is sourcing here, there's not nearly enough of it to claim WP:GNG — rather, it's WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that all mayors and all candidates for office always get, and fails to adequately demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Herrera[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The subject fails notability guidelines. His band is well-known, but he is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator based on the additional information on Mike Herrera's Tumbledown. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles on two bands that he has fronted. If they're both notable, we should keep this. If one isn't, we should merge it to the one that is, Either way we shouldn't outright delete it. --Michig (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The other band is not notable. I have PRODed it and will take it to AfD if de-PRODed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Colorado Springs shootings[edit]

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

Notability questionable, outside recentism. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirect with history or merge - The incident is prominent enough that it should be either kept, redirected with history, or merged into Planned_Parenthood#2015_attack. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this tweet and this article is accurate, then it being apart of the Planned Parenthood article would be inappropriate, because it would make it NOT the target, just a location. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not accurate, however, as a careful reading of the Townhall piece as updated shows. Tvoz/talk 06:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Assuming that Planned Parenthood is not relevant, then this can be redirected to List of shootings in Colorado. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely notable as this is a somewhat unusual attack Rossbawse (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This will definitely be a notable event in the abortion debate that has been strengthening more recently with the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except current facts state that the shooting had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood itself, but rather it was the place the shooter ducked for cover after a robbery gone wrong at the Chase Bank. This would be dishonest and go against sources. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 06:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Then someone had better update the article to mention Chase Bank. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well, blame the articles at the time; they never mentioned such a thing. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those were not "current facts". Tvoz/talk 06:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy, and still a current event. I think the title should associate it with PP though, if only to differentiate it from other mass shootings in Colorado Springs this year (e.g., Oct 31). Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it has nothing to do with PP itself, according to sources at the moment, and it would be misleading. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 06:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Poindexter et al. The tweet cited above as evidence was early and shown to be untrue - he was inside Planned Parenthood. And the Townhall piece, also largely based on unconfirmed tweets, clearly says in comments attributed to the police spokeswoman, not tweeters, that while motive is not yet determined, the event started and ended at PP. The Chase Bank claim was an early unconfirmed report that was discounted later on. Tvoz/talk 06:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, information has changed, but I don't see it as having changed enough establish notability to an encyclopedia. We are not a news site. WikiNews is. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 06:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Wikipedia policies should not be taken to obvious absurdity. It would be wise to withdraw this nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please give this at least a week - there is likely to be a political connection between protests outside the clinic and the shooting in the clinic. This is almost certainly set to have significant political ramifications for Planned Parenthood and the abortion debate in the United States. -- Callinus (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Noteworthy and newsworthy. WP:BREAKING would advise waiting a little longer, but there's quite a lot of news coverage on it right now that I don't think we need to wait for more evidence of notability. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn as it's WP:SNOW-y. Will revisit soon if lasting notability doesn't present itself. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 07:39, 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 delete. Of the people arguing to keep, two are WP:SPA, whose input I discounted, and the third failed to make any policy-based arguments why this should be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyc[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Practically unsourced. Argument for keeping on the talk page was based on the two sources currently cited as "References" in the article. The first is a book I have that, as far as I can tell, doesn't talk about the subject at all. The page number given is the references list page that lists the one citation (of the article on Wikipedia). The other citation curiously cites page 241, but according to GBooks it's only 190 pages long. A search through GBooks reveals it in a list and that's all. Likewise I did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page's log shows that it was deleted 6 October 2009 as the outcome of a deletion discussion, but I can't find that deletion discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: Indeed. I noticed that. Also odd is that none of the deletions look to be due to the AfD (i.e. the deletion the G4 refers back to). Also checked encyc.org -- not there either. I imagine it's a mistake, but we might as well ping Jimfbleak anyway in case there's something else we can check (not expecting him to remember a 2009 speedy :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Largo Plazo,Rhododendrites I don't think the discussion ever existed. The entire content of the version I deleted was the SD tag that has caused the confusion and a restatement of the rationale for the first deletion. I deleted since there was no relevant content, but it looks as if I either omitted to check whether there had been an AFD, or did so but forgot to change the deletion rationale. Either way, it seems to be my error, for which I apologise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you Rhododendrites for your interest in the article and the notice on my talk page. I think you might have overlooked p53 in Darius' book where content from Encyc is quoted having to do with mailing lists and control systems. At any rate, Wikipedia is not paper and I would really appreciate it if you would let this article stand. It's really not hurting anything by being here, and future scholars might appreciate Wikipedia having an article on the topic so that they can quickly be brought up to speed. Duck of Luke (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Duck of Luke: Wikipedia is not paper, but has clear rules for article inclusion (WP:N being the most obvious and most relevant to this discussion). "Keep" at an Afd in which contested notability is the nomination reason is typically only considered valid if accompanied by arguments showing how it is notable, and that requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". That means coverage of the subject itself rather than citing it or briefly mentioning it. None of this is to say it's not a high-quality site or even that it's not important, but that it's not "notable". If we don't have standards for inclusion, Wikipedia turns into the rest of the web -- a directory, a place for promotion, an indiscriminate collection of information, and all of the other things it is explicitly not. I did search for sources before nominating, but if you can find some that I couldn't, please do include them here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your desire to improve Wikipedia but I think the slippery slope argument here is a bit exaggerated. Wikipedia carried the Encyc article for a long time and there was no loss of respectability, no mass confusion, no rush of spammers, no taxing of server resources, no problem for anybody.

The article is well-justified considering that the references are not mere newspaper clippings, but important books written by scholars specializing in online knowledge. Wikipedia is more complete and comprehensive with this article in it, and loses literally nothing by keeping it here. Duck of Luke (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing that for this one topic there is overwhelming justification for applying different treatment from the one to which all other articles are subjected? Or that we change the notability policy and its implementation overall? If the former, well, that won't fly. If the latter, you can initiate a discuss at a higher level than this article about making alterations to this website's framework for evaluating notability. That matter won't get resolved here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Largoplazo! I'm not trying to change anything, don't worry about that. If anything I would like to keep things simple. We have two very high quality references. Done - keep. Secondarily, read Dariusz' book. It's great. Duck of Luke (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References good. Noteworthy. Yt442 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC) — Yt442 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

you insult me with single purpose message. unfriendly. Yt442 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC) further you Rhodo should recuse yourself because you are a paid employee of Wiki edu. and ninja never read Common knowledge reference.[reply]

Sigh... So, I suppose, working for an organization that engages in activities on Wikipedia means that I would use my volunteer account to delete articles about all other online encyclopedias? Because they're in "competition" with Wikipedia or something? And of all the wikis, encyclopedias, and websites with similar aims Encyc is the one I've decided poses the biggest threat? ......
Also, not only have I read Common Knowledge, but I've cited it, assigned it, and in fact got it out to check the citation for this article -- a "reference" which anyone who has a copy or takes the time to check Google Books can see barely even qualifies as a brief mention.
Regarding single-purpose accounts, see WP:SPA. Everyone is entitled to participate, yes, and I didn't mean to offend with the tag. It's more or less standard procedure for these discussions. The idea is that when people come to Wikipedia just to participate in a particular process and achieve a particular result, their opinion is weighed accordingly -- as someone who is here for certain ends rather than to improve Wikipedia to be as good as it can be according to the community's policies and guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes you should recuse due to your commercial interest. 190.210.63.105 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. There's some mind-numbingly boring drama spread out over a few blogs and such, and it got a trivial mention in some long list of online encyclopedias in a book, but that seems to be the extent of it. I guess it can be redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure where. List of online encyclopedias, maybe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no article it would be removed that that list, however. If a redirect makes sense I'd probably just suggest Encyclopedia, being an occasional abbreviation thereof. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 04:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion currently on this AFD submission but I do smell a little bit of WP:NPOV issues in the article. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 05:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This online encyclopedia has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That's not surprising, since after eight years, it has only 2396 articles, a random selection of which are strikingly mediocre. It isn't notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of secondary sources to verify the article's notability. Also, lack of neutrality. Also, a conflict of interest, based on the article's creator. GabeIglesia (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yt442 is my friend. He showed me book. Reference is there but is not on internets. Elguapo9 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Elguapo9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Kindly tell me which page(s) you're talking about and I'd be happy to provide access through the copy I have in front of me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 16:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McIlvenna[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable paramilitary. No more entitled to an article than any of the hundreds of paramilitaries killed in The Troubles. Quis separabit? 02:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be quite well remembered, considering in addition to the marching band he gets an annual parade (in Glasgow no less). As usual features in multiple books on the history of the IRA. I don't think the right approach to take (especially when the subject is people killed in The Troubles) is to decide whether people are "entitled to an article." [20], [21], [22], [23] —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Irish republican fifth columnists in Glasgow (who, ironically, are among the most staunchly opposed to Scottish nationalism and the SNP Party) choose to glorify him, mostly, I suspect, to irritate the authorities and pro-unionists in the West of Scotland, particularly Lanarkshire, does not make him remotely notable as notability is defined for Wikipedia editing purposes. And re your other point; yes, it is entirely appropriate "to decide whether people are "entitled to an article", as determining eligibility for an article is why AFD exists in the first place. Also, given that some 3600 people were killed in the last installment of The Troubles, we are not creating 3,600 articles, are we? That would be "selective condemnation" and Gerry Adams says that's wrong. Quis separabit? 15:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 04:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 04:49, 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 merge to Ezekiel Ox. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ox and the Fury[edit]

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

Reason Dalamani (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article nominated for deletion as it lacks sources, notability and reads with a non neutral POV. To me it reads like it has been written by the subject of the article for self promotionDalamani (talk) 02:46, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ezekiel Ox. I'm surpised you didn't find this during your WP:BEFORE searches - there isn't enough for a standalone article but a merge would clearly be preferable to deletion. --Michig (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a good solution, esp. if Michig beefs up the Ox article with all the good stuff they found. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has two independently notable members: it passes WP:NBAND#6. Why Merge to one member while the other is ignored?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 17:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hanafis[edit]

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

Total OR and POV. no scholarly sources give "lists of hanafis". People are not put into lists according to their religion the last time I checked. Yes there can be lists of Hanafi authors or Hanafi clergy, if sources are found for that, but a list of hanafis? no please. We are not in nazi germany. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists on Wikipedia are primarily navigational aids - we do not require that the list itself is notable, though we do require that the subject of the list (Hanafi, in this case) is notable and, for most lists of people, that the people listed are notable and that they verifiably meet the criterion for being on the list - the sourcing for that does not have to be given in the list, provided it is given in the articles on the listed people. I have checked several of the articles, and in each case the article identifies them, giving reliable sources, as a Hanafi lawyer or legal theorist. The list could possibly do with some checking (there are a couple of redlinks and, despite what it says at the top, not all the entries are currently in chronological order), but that is a matter for normal editing, not deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is one of those instances where a category is more appropriate. A Hanafi can be anyone of 500 million followers (= a third of the Muslim population according to Hanafi#Sources and methodology) of that school. A "list of Hanafis" is just too vague, may include pretty much any Muslim from Turkey/Levant/Egypt and Central Asia, and is a perfect example of point 6 of WP:DOAL: Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revoking vote per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shia Muslims (2nd nomination). (Too extensive Wikipedia-wide "issue") - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hanafi. Saff V. (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lists should not replace categories. Perhaps add a "Hanafi scholar" category to each entry, though. kashmiri ^TALK 22:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Revoking my previous !vote. The majority arguments here are quite convining. kashmiri ^TALK 12:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have dozens of other lists on Wikipedia such as List of Jews and List of Ahmadis. Should they be deleted aswell?
Keep, categories should not replace lists, per WP:CLN. It seems to be a defining characteristic of Islamic scholarship. People whose notability is unrelated to the topic don't belong on this list. Annotation would make it much more valuable, of course. Siuenti (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Siuenti (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, other people are listed by their religion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rostro de México 2012[edit]

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

The only two references given for this event lack independence from it. The Spanish Wikipedia had nothing on it. I am not seeing enough to support a notability claim. KDS4444^Talk 08:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:59, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make a Smellmitment[edit]

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

We already have Wieden+Kennedy AND Old Spice in Wikipedia. Why this, with bunch of YouTube links? MarkYabloko 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contrary to my expectations, I located this article from the Los Angeles Times. The Ad Week coverage is pretty brief and already included in the article. I'm thinking maybe there's enough sourced and sourceable content to merge this to The Man Your Man Could Smell Like. I don't think this advertising campaign is independently notable from the previous one, but I guess I'm curious to see what other people say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Man Your Man Could Smell Like. Nobody's going to make a comment? Alright, I'll go with my initial suggestion and say it should be merged, then. I agree with the nominator that we don't need individual articles on every advertising campaign related to this product, but I think there's enough available sourcing that we can include it somewhere. I don't think this is off-topic for the target article, though I guess purists may disagree. If someone can locate more reliable sources that discuss the advertising campaign in detail, that would make it possible to keep this, but I don't think it's there yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:56, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mahmud Khan II[edit]

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

Not sure how reliable the source is. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 19th century Imperial Gazetteer of India may not be a reliable source for interpretation ofIndian re civilization, but it is certainly good enough to establish who was the ruler of a particualr Indian prinely state, and people in such positions are notable. Multiple other histories are of courseavailable, and nominating this without checking is not helpful. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with with DGG (talk · contribs) - this type of person is notable enough to be included. I added some info and a reference to another RS.--Lemnaminor (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable ruler. Certainly needs more sources but the proof of his position establishes notability. More sources are likely to be available in local print. Most credible Pakistani sources have not yet made it to the internet. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl López García[edit]

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

It seems like the article is a auto-biography. Plus it needs more reliable sources WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. clpo13_(talk) 16:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PEOPLE. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Friendly Precincts[edit]

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

This appears to be an outgrowth of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Georgatos which also has issues. Information on this page should be merged in to the "Homeless" section of the main article rather than having its own page. JamesG5 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article in its own right with substantial references and if an outgrowth then out of the Matagarup Refugee Camp. It is a significant public value story for the homeless and a campaign that involves multiple parties and has secured commitments. I believe it should have a page of its own so it grows in its own right. This campaign has many involved and should not be deleted. Georgatos is only the person who established the campaign and it should not be limited to him but also involves Kaeshagen, Clarke, the homeless sector and commitments from Councils and others. Keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattersthestruggle (talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gerry Georgatos. Doesn't seem to have much significance beyond the already marginally-notable Georgatos. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't quite see enough that would be relevant to Georgatos to justify a merge, although a sentence here or there could manage it. Little question of passing notability in its own right. Frickeg (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the promotor's page. It;s already mentioned there, and there is not enough worth merging. . No separate notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has plenty of references and I think it is notable. Biscuittin (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:54, 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) 17:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Trafeli[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or any of the lesser qualifications for athletes. Article does not make any assertion of any claim that would reach automatic notability either. Can't imagine why being named to an ethnic hall of fame would qualify one as notable. John from Idegon (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As expanded, the article clearly meets any notability guideline for his accomplishments at the national level as a speed skater, earning induction to the halls of fame listed in the article. The material added all ultimately stemmed from the sources provided in the article when it was nominated for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Came across this from DYK. Great job on the expansion Alansohn. Clearly meets GNG. His sport, speed skating isn't really listed in WP:ATHLETE. "Amateur sports" has no applicable category, "Ice hockey" assumes one is on a team, "figure skating" is a completely different set of skills. Only remotely close parallel would be track and field, though clearly not on ice. However, using that it is a race, he meets multiple criteria #3 (won 3 international competitions), #7 (set five United States records), and #10 (inducted into the National Speed Skating Hall of Fame in 2010). Thus, would seem he also meets reasonable criteria of Athlete. Clear keep. SusunW (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Film Awards[edit]

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

May not fit notability criteria, the project only has 400-some likes on Facebook and most sources on a Google search are by the organization itself. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 02:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable event on the pay-and-play short film circuit that fails the notability guideline on events. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Sam Sailor's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 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. This is a weak enough 'keep', based on the strength - or, I should say, lack thereof - of the !votes that I seriously considered closing this as "no consensus". But the fact remains that it's a unanimous 'keep' (aside from the nominator, of course), so the weakest of keep conclusions this is. Because of that I'll note that for this one there isn't the usual "this would be disruptive" if a second nomination is considered desirable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald L. Hallstrom[edit]

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

Article appears to be sourced only from publications associated with his position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official p b p 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hallstrom is part of the Presidency of the Seventy, making him one of the top 22 leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints. The sources are not created by him or under his direct supervision. There is enough information to indicate he is notable, especially since there are articles on everyone else who has been a member of the Presidency of the Seventy.198.109.0.16 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there are other articles on other people who have held this office doesn't exclude this article from having proper sourcing. And I don't think you properly understand what's "independent". One commonly used definition is "vested interest", and it's clear that Hallstrom has a vested interest in the LDS Church that has produced the sources on him. p b p 17:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. As mentioned, Hallstrom holds an important role in the LDS Church. By virtue of his place as a Seventy, he is one who is in a prominent spot on the list of those who might become church president. If all the apostles suddenly died all at once (hasn't happened yet, but that's not saying it couldn't happen), the Presidency of the Seventy would be the next hierarchical body from which the new Church President will be chosen. Hallstrom serves both as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy and a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, who give lifetime service, as they are merely released as general authorities. Just like any other Seventy, he will be granted emeritus status the October following his birthday. I have searched the internet for mentions of members of the Presidency of the Seventy, and a good majority of those I've come in contact with are from non-LDS sources. I won't post links to any of those tonight, but I can assure you, such links do exist. Did anyone in favor of page deletion even bother to check articles mentioning Hallstrom by doing a web search? Those sources are easy to come across. At the end of the day, I think the proposal to delete this article shows a clear anti-LDS bias. There are several articles about the LDS Church here on Wikipedia, and most of those use LDS-related sources for verification. I think a better approach to this issue is to post on the Latter Day Saint movement page here and invite comments. Since I am coming late to this discussion, I want to get verification that what I'm telling you is true. I've been swamped with a move, a job, and health issues, which have forced me to cut down on Wikipedia time. If not for all that, I could have the sources for you by tomorrow. With everything on my plate the way it is, it may take several days or a week or slightly more to again find these sources. I would ask for your patience with me as I work to prove my point. I would also request that any further discussion, unless it's a new argument for or against deleting this page, be suspended until I can provide those sources I've promised. Can we agree to that, please? --Jgstokes (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jgstokes: As noted in the nomination, the first page of Google search contains only LDS-related sources. And, as noted in previous nominations, it's not an "anti-LDS bias", it's a desire for independent sources; somebody whose notability comes from a particular organization needs to have at least some sources that aren't affiliated in any manner with that organization. Also, I don't believe being a Seventy is enough for something to automatically be kept even if sources can't be found. If you believe this, you should suggest that WP:N for people be included. p b p 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending secondary sources. If, as stated, he is a major personality in the LDS, there shouldn't be much difficulty in finding good independent secondary sources. JMWt (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or userify, obviously notable per Seventy_(LDS_Church)#Presidency_of_the_Seventy, pending secondary sources. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:32, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carol F. McConkie[edit]

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

Article appears to be sourced only from publications associated with her position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official p b p 14:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PBP's campaign to remove most articles on important leaders of the LDS Church needs to be stopped. He has consistently expanded what he considers "LDS" sources to class everything as such. The sources here give indepth coverage of the subject, and are more independent than many sources used to create articles on politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, @Johnpacklambert:, what needs to be stopped is you creating piles and piles and piles of badly sourced articles. If you want this articles consistently kept, you've got to source them when you create them! It ain't rocket science! p b p 05:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't even create this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, whoever created it needs to start sourcing his articles as well. p b p 05:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: User:Johnpacklambert characterization of this as a "campaign to remove most articles on important leaders of the LDS Church" is inaccurate. I only nominate articles for deletion that have no non-LDS sources. I do this regardless of the article's creator; though JPL is among the ones who have created the most articles solely sourced from LDS sources. p b p
Comment I have added additional sources, one of which has absolutely no connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the other is not in any way a Church publication either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She appears in the Deseret News a lot. I know that's a church paper, but if she's really important in the church itself, that might mean something. It's not like LDS is small... Just my two cents! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Women (organization). Being first consouler in this organization is not a sufficient claim of notability for a standalone article, and there is an abvious lack of significant coverage in secondary independent sources. Redirecting the article to the organization a subject belongs is the standard outcome for individuals who don't otherwise meet specific SNGs or the GNG. Notability could be eventually revised if sources will emerge in the future, but actually it's just too soon. Cavarrone 12:46, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdus Sobhan Chowdhury[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. An upazila is an administrative region three levels below national. Being a sub-regional political party president does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The first two cites mention the subject only tangentially. The third cite is a dead link, but I doubt very much that it contained significant coverage of the subject, as extensive searches for this Abdus Sobhan Chowdhury have found nothing but passing mentions: [24], [25], [26], [27] (mostly of the "was in attendance" variety) and one brief quote. Without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per one event rule. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 05:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happiest persoN (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sohin Shah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion from blocked sock on not notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is passing mentions and PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 05:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 02:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also agree and echo the above, there's no convincingly better coverage for a better article. It also occurred to me this could've been a G5 again if the dates were not different (this was started in August before the original author). Notifying Ritchie333 from the first AfD in case he wants to comment about the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspar Makale[edit]

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

Sourcing doesn't establish notability per WP:BIO. Kelly ^hi! 10:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hollingsworth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Other than a few website links, there are no significant sources for this subject. Recommend entry deletion. WikiWatcher987 (talk) 14:45, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Is there consensus for page deletion? I move to delete. I see nothing to keep this page as it fails GNG. WikiWatcher987 (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: WikiWatcher987 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

— WikiWatcher987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find lots of sources by a simple Gnews search on top of all the sources already present; subject meets WP:BASIC. Did nom do any part of BEFORE? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Adam Hollingsworth: Gov. Rick Scott's new right-hand man". Tampa Bay Times.
^ "Oops. New documents show another degree controversy dogs Scott's COS, Adam Hollingsworth - Naked Politics". Miami Herald.
^ "Marc Caputo: Hollingsworth's lie about PR degree bad spin for Gov. Rick Scott". miamiherald.
^ "Jacksonville's Adam Hollingsworth puts out fires for Florida Gov. Rick Scott". jacksonville.com.
^ "Hollingsworth steps down as Scott's chief of staff". Jacksonville Business Journal. 20 November 2014.
^ "Will Anyone Investigate Adam Hollingsworth Under Florida's Perjury Statute?". Sunshine State News - Florida Political News.

Thanks, Sam Sailor, for belittling me. I am knew to Wikipedia. Yes, I did look into the deletion criteria. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians, I thought this entry did NOT meet the criteria. This guy isn't at the national level and the sources listed, while credible, do nothing to make this entry anymore valid. Mr. Hollingsworth was a state-level employee and prior to that a city-level employee - both of which are not notable. WikiWatcher987 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWatcher987: We were all newbies once, so try not to take a little criticism too personally, even if it may seem pointy to you . . . . Most of us wiki veterans are used to talking to each other in wiki jargon short-hand with links to policies and guidelines, and, yes, that can be arcane and a little obnoxious at times. Even though the article subject does not satisfy the specific criteria for politicians, he does satisfy the criteria under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Many subject areas have specific notability guidelines (SNGs), but all of them are back-stopped by GNG. For future reference, you may want to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion; there's a lot of good advice and conventional wisdom to be found there. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me or ask on my user talk page. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable public figure with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Thanks for Northamerica1000 for doing the basic homework outline above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Racism in the United States. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Blackness in the U.S.[edit]

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

Content already covered in article 'Racism in the United States.' Thereppy (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively per WP:V to Racism in the United States. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvageable to Racism in the United States, and delete the rest. At the moment, this is nothing more than a WP:CONTENTFORK. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:58, 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 Post-medieval archaeology. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post Medieval[edit]

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

"Post Medieval" can be used in many contexts, not just archaeology. The archaeological usage is already discussed at Post-medieval archaeology. In Western history, the Renaissance comes to mind as "post-medieval". As a WP:DICDEF of an adjective, I don't see this as worth holding on to. BDD (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Post-medieval archaeology. The use of the term is primarily archaeological. 60 years ago, no one paid attention to archaeology after Prehistoric and Roman (yes, probably an exaggeration), so the Society for Medieval Archaeology was formed. The question of what to do about later periods led to the foundation of the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology. Terminology on periods has followed. Historians normally talk about the "early modern period". I accordingly regard BDD as wrong. Alternatively, the article should be transwikified to the dictionary. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Post-Medieval Archaeology for now. I'll note that Post-medieval already redirects. I've added a redirect hatnote to the article for clarity. The term "post-medieval" does look to be most commonly used -- when used specifically -- to talk about post-medieval archaeology. I don't know that's the best way to handle it, but it seems like a sensible way to go. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:52, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lalya Gaye[edit]

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

Fails GNG, the current article is in shambles and seems to have been copy pasted from her website to boot. CSD as removed by the creator(who is SPA as far as I can see), so I took this route instead of renominating. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable artist, The entire is a mess and quite honestly deserves nuking & rewriting, Although rewriting would be pointless as nothing notability-wise on Google. –Davey2010^Talk 02:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; article sounds the slightest bit promotional also. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill promotional artist's page. Not seeing anything in a cursory Google search counting towards notability... Carrite (talk) 15:58, 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. WP:NPASR. No !votes outside the nominator after two relists. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel LaPlante[edit]

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

Does not meet notability for WP:CRIMINAL ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't have to meet WP:CRIMINAL, which like all the specialized sections under WP:BIO, offers supplemental means of demonstrating notability for people who don't meet the basic guidelines under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. But they can also meet the basic guidelines, yet not the supplemental ones, and still qualify. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The murderer is noted in a couple books about "killer kids" (i.e. [28][29]) and the murders are noted in a few others (e.g.[30][31]). With those mentions, an argument could be made that this squeezes by WP:PERP or the various subsections of WP:EVENT. I have no objections to renaming as Gustafson family murders. - Location (talk) 01:49, 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Arora Manekar[edit]

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

Considering that there are over a dozen contestants every season, I don't think there is an assertion of notability at all. There isn't a Wiki page for every winner and runners-up of Masterchef for every country Smarter1 (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Not every game show contestant is notable. Searches turned up virtually nothing about this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Simpson[edit]

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

Seemingly clear non-notable locally known entertainer as my searches at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam found nothing better than a few expected links and certainly nothing for better notability and improvement. This is even borderline speedy and PROD material but I always like AfD comments anyway. Notifying speedy decliner DESiegel in case he had any input. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty clearly notable. Well known in the UK for his stand-up, TV, and film appearances. If we're defining being well known in the UK as 'locally known' then the project has lost all hope. --Michig (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Eden's Apple (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — Eden's Apple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How, exactly? He is a well known comedian who was part of The Real McCoy sketch show, has appeared on stand up TV shows such as Live at Jongleurs, Red Light Comedy: Live from Amsterdam, has been a celebrity guest/panellist on Never Mind the Buzzcocks (3 times), Blankety Blank, A Question of TV, Big Brother's Big Mouth, The Comic Side of 7 Days, The One Show, and then there's the half-hour BBC special Respect: A Felix Dexter Special. Pretty obviously notable, and I'm wondering why nobody else seems able to find any of this. Or is nobody else really trying? --Michig (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michig (talk · contribs), "Or is nobody else really trying?" Agreed. The subject is clearly notable. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Logan, Brian (2002-08-20). "All white on the night". theguardian.com. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Junior Simpson is one of Britain's most successful stand-ups. He is not at Edinburgh this year; he hasn't been since 1998. "Black performers," he says, "look at Edinburgh and at the people who go there, and we feel in the back of our minds that we won't be able to find an audience."
  That is partly because Edinburgh has a tiny black population. "When I was there in 1998," says Simpson, "the black population had increased by 50% - because I was there." But even "at regular comedy nights in London, Manchester, Birmingham or wherever, it's still unusual to see a black performer on the bill."
2. Daswani, Mansha (1999-01-08). "A trip to the loo launches comic career". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article discusses his beginning as a comedian:
  In his previous calling as a salesman, stand-up comic Junior Simpson would have never believed that a routine trip to the toilet would launch his career in comedy.
  "I went along to a wedding with a girlfriend; she knew the bride and groom, but I didn't. The master of ceremonies got up and said: 'Does anyone else want to say anything on behalf of the bride and groom?' I had got up to go to the toilet, the guy assumed I wanted to say something, and I couldn't really say 'I don't know these people I have to go to the toilet'.
  "I made some stuff up, talked about the day, and the whole place was laughing," said Simpson from London earlier this week.
  The article covers his career:
  His television debut was on the BBC's The Real McCoy in 1994, before going on to Sunday Selection, a variety show in London's Hackney Empire theatre, BBC's The Stand Up Show and Channel 5's Comedy Store. This year he will perform for the third time at the renowned Edinburgh Fringe Festival, a three-week celebration of theatre, comedy, dance and music.
  In addition, the "over 21, under 99"-year-old comic hosts a game show, In The Dark, on Channel 5. The programme has three couples performing a variety of everyday tasks in total darkness. Special cameras allow the studio audience to witness the contestants doing things such as putting make-up on their partner, swapping clothes or bandaging their partner's head.
3. Hale, Natalie (2007-12-13). "Festive cheer". Bristol Post. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Junior honed his material and performance skills on the British black comedy circuit. Soon word started to spread about this bright, young comedian, dubbed "the new Lenny Henry", and within a few years he had become a mainstream success.
  Junior's style is hard to categorise. This, he says, is deliberate. He doesn't want to be stereotyped or confined to a niche market, and it's his desire and ability to metamorphosise that makes him a hit with such a wide range of audiences.
  ...
  Junior's ease at adapting his material means he is also a favourite with producers booking guests for TV shows, from Blankety Blank to Never Mind The Buzzcocks.
  The talented all-rounder has also done some acting work. His TV credits include Holby City and Casualty, while his film appearances include High Heels And Low Lifes, and the hit Brit flick Love Actually, playing the world's worst wedding DJ.
4. Hale, Natalie (2006-08-17). "Ticking all the boxes". Bristol Post. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  From wedding speeches to Love Actually, Junior Simpson talks to Natalie Hale about his comedy career Since appearing on the comedy scene, Luton's lapsed choirboy Junior Simpson has quickly established himself as a true "tour de force" live performer.
  ...
  Junior's highest profile role was as the world's worst wedding DJ in British blockbuster Love Actually. But despite the attention he received from appearing in the award-winning, worldwide hit, it's stand-up that still gives the comedian the biggest buzz of all.
5. Phillips, Melissa (2004-03-10). "Comedy Is a 'Lonely' Job". Guardian Messenger. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  JUNIOR Simpson says it is difficult to make a comedian laugh.
  "The series The Office always makes me howl with laughter, but otherwise it's not that easy to make me laugh," the English funnyman says.
  ...
  Junior says his material is more global comedy and is not specific to a certain area.
  ...
6. "Accidental comedian". Hendon Times. Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Junior Simpson got into comedy by accident. The Luton-born comic was walking out of a wedding reception to use the loo, when the MC thought he wanted to make a speech and invited him on to the stage.
  "The only person I knew there was my girlfriend," said the Hackney comedian. "I was just going to say a few things, like best wishes for the future, but then I started talking about relationships and my parents. I went into this stand-up routine. And people were laughing."
  The happy accident has seen the 41-year-old delivering his humourous observations on life on TV and in clubs for the last 11 years.
7. Bennett, Steve (2002-09-01). "Junior Simpson: Living proof that style often triumphs over content". Chortle. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Simpson's irresistible energy and evangelical delivery can engage the most jaded of rooms - which is even more of an achievement when you consider the sheer paucity of his material.
  His topics seem stuck in a timewarp, covering such hoary chestnuts as the deep-voiced guy who does cinema ad voiceovers, and he does so with little insight or originality.
  Though his infectious stage manner carries him a long way, it can't overcome the dreary lack of invention that lies where the soul of act should be.
  There is the very occasional funny line, but it all seems like woefully inadequate papering over the gaping holes in his creativity.
8. "Junior Simpson and others to appear in comedy night at Hertford Theatre". Hertfordshire Mercury. 2014-03-04. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  The former salesman, now 50, joked: "If I had had better bladder control we wouldn’t be having this conversation."
  Junior looks for humour in everyday life and shares stories of his travels.
  ...
  The dad of one, who lives in south Yorkshire, has had many highs and lows in his performing career.
  ...
  A particular highlight was performing to British troops in Iraq alongside Jim Jeffries.
  His lowest point was a show at the Edinburgh Festival, which he completed but was heckled so badly that he left without picking up his coat or the money he was owed.
9. Hirst, Andrew (2014-01-03). "Comedian Junior Simpson heading for Hebden Bridge". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. Archived from the original on 2015-11-28. Retrieved 2015-11-28.
  The article notes:
  
  With his infectious energy and huge stage presence, it is easy to see why Junior is a circuit favourite.
  He has a boundless joy and exuberance that has audiences hooked with hilarity.
  A true observational comic, Junior finds his humour in the everyday and humdrum with anecdotes of his world travels as a comedian adding a personal originality to his set.
  Junior is a regular headliner at clubs all over the UK and is also in great demand in South Africa and Australia.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Junior Simpson to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Passage of GNG has been demonstrated through publication of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independent sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not arguing with the refs provided in this afd. Szzuk (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. NAC WWGB (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restlesslegsyndrome[edit]

article already present Twomcvms (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Twomcvms: Can you say which article already exists on a similar topic? Blackbombchu (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackbombchu: here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restless_legs_syndrome Twomcvms (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why wasn't this A10'd already? smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 04:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because some dude removed the speedy deletion tag! WWGB (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Restless legs syndrome~~ as a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 04:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if their space bar is broken. WWGB (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, you're right, who's going to have that issue? Speedy delete per everyone else. Nate • (chatter) 01:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no redirect required, becausejoiningallthewordstogetherisnotaplausiblemisspelling. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per nom. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A main article already exists at Restless legs syndrome. WWGB (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A10. Article already exists. Thereppy (talk) 16:43, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Republic[edit]

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

Barely notable website. Most of the sources found on Google only mentions the subject. Sixth o f March 00:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable station, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the notability guideline for web-specific content are not found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:01, 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 Deleted (speedy) as G4, recreation of previously discussed deletion (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2016 pageant[edit]

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

Future event with no venue, no date and no reliable sources, failing WP:CRYSTAL. Also yet another attempt to recreate Miss Universe 2016, which was redirected and protected. This pageant was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 65th Miss Universe Pageant three weeks ago. G4 speedy was contested, saying it should go to AfD. So here we are again. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as way TOOSOON, Fails GNG for now although around 2016 things would probably get better. –Davey2010^Talk 02:58, 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.