< 12 October	14 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW (and based on a clear misunderstanding of policy). postdlf (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian telephone companies[edit]

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

1. List has no references, and thus is not verifiable. 2. May not be notable. 3. Wikipedia is not a directory. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Not sure why this was nominated for deletion. Perhaps some of the redlinks should be removed but that's an entirely different discussion. Perhaps take a look at MOS:LISTS. This is precisely what lists are used for on WP. mikeman67 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as this has the signs of being kept and is applicable for its field. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid list. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is not directory, it is just a list class article as usual. --Human3015^TALK 07:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being unref'd isn't a reason for deletion. This goes hand in hand with the category too, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as encyclopedic defined list topic (although referencing and significance of all entries should be checked). On a sidenote, I added a hatnote link between WP:NOTDIRECTORY and MOS:LINKS to make that connection a bit clearer. GermanJoe (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spuzzum First Nation[edit]

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

Incomplete article. Part about the tribe is unsourced. Under normal circumstances it would be considered failing WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Another word for "incomplete article" is "stub" which is indicated at the bottom of the article. I admit it is pretty thin and under-sourced, although I have just added some information and sources. Spuzzum is the topic of at least one book (now referenced in the article) and is covered in several other scholarly works. I see no reason to delete it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not delete articles just for being "incomplete" — and while this definitely needs some referencing improvement, First Nations band governments are a notable thing for which we should always have an article about every one that exists, with no exceptions for any reason ever. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- According to what rule is that? The Banner talk 21:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take your pick of WP:GEOLAND, our notability standards for government bodies and our notability standards for ethnic groupings (a First Nation, by definition, cuts across all three of those concepts.) Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your arguments sounds more like "It is USA so it is notable".
      - Well, no, a) because First Nations are in Canada and not the USA and b) because WP:GEOLAND really is a thing. I can't tell you how many countless settlements we've included -- hamlets, villages, dots on the map -- with the tiniest of stubs, because of this very guideline. In fact if memory serves, I believe one of our most prolific editors, Dr. Blofeld, even created a Bot just to spawn them (?). At any rate, by contrast, as you can see in List of First Nations governments, there is a large though finite number of First Nations in Canada. So Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --The fact that an article is missing some sections, might possibly be a reason to delete some section headings (though better not: it may encourage someone to write them). It is certainly not a reason to delete the whole article. If it was not capable of being verified, it would be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcats arguments do not convince me at all. But the edits of Themightyquill make me doubt about the nomination. Request speedy close as keep (and I hope the article gets more info) The Banner talk 20:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramchandra Siras[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per this DRV discussion, the previous AFD has been put to one side and the article relisted. The previous discussion was very poor.

Lets hope we do a better job this time. as the closer of the DRV this is a procedural listing so I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:PROF; Siras won the Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad award for his 2002 collection of poems. He is notable for having a film made about his life, the ground-breaking court case in 2010 which was brought by Siras and has been a fundamental case study of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was recognized as a "literary genius" of Mirarathi poetry [1]. --Fæ (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This Times of India news shows he was notable. Also winner of one of highest state level literary award is enough for notability. --Human3015^TALK 22:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject obviously had a significant career before his death, as signified by the receipt of the award. There is plenty of source coverage, including the above obituary which is largely not about the circumstances surrounding his death. The fact that someone made a film about him five years after his death (which itself is getting plenty of coverage) suggests his notability is not temporary, refuting the WP:NOTNEWS argument from the last AfD. Hut 8.5 18:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Armchair Cynics. MBisanz ^talk 16:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sutherland[edit]

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

NN musician failing all 12 elements of WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG The Dissident Aggressor 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing much here. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armchair Cynics. While there has often been a perception among some Wikipedians that any musician who has ever been in a notable band should always have their own standalone BLP in addition to the article about the band, WP:NMUSIC says that a musician who cannot be adequately sourced as a standalone topic in his own right gets a redirect to the band and not a standalone BLP that's this sparse or this poorly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armchair Cynics as per Bearcat. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How High Ventura County[edit]

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

This article was created as this version by a disclosed paid editor: [2]. I went through and examined the sources and have now realised that the only sources that mention the campaign are those left in the article. As a public health initiative it is inevitable that there will be media sources mentioning it, but I can't find any sources that indicate that this is of any lasting significance. For example my searches in Factiva produced zero hits and there are <1000 google hits. SmartSE (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not much coming up in the way of significant secondary source coverage, unfortunately. — Cirt (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the creator of the page who has already disclosed his WP:COI. I believe that the page is notable and has been sufficiently been covered in multiple reliable third party sources. Mr RD 15:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet notability criteria. A single press release on News, zip on books (except a link to the website of the group), zip on newspapers, scholar, highbeam or JSTOR. Citations in current article don't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexius08 (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made Market[edit]

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

Unremarkable business, no sources offered to indicate notability per notability guidelines. Speedy delete tags have been removed. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Respectfully disagree - I believe this business is remarkable. You are misusing the notability guidelines which are intended to combat spam and unambiguous promotion - not to delete authentic articles that have a need but no existence yet. This article provides neither spam nor promotion - but instead satisfies an encyclopedic need. Encylonedia 22:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been awaiting evidence of the "encyclopedic need" as shown with reliable sources. The notability guidelines are not an anti-spam filter but a way to evaluate notability. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This company is notable and any weak sections can be improved and any promotional matter can be removed.Rigsofrods (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Rigsofrods (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 23:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Speedy delete article shows no claim to notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is notable. From crunchbase and angellist, it is clear that this article merits inclusion. This company will have an article. Its a matter of time, so it should be started and improved now. Encyclonedia (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)— Encyclonedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy-per nom-kept on having to restore that as well! Wgolf (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. I know this company (customer) - they are notable in a space that does not get media coverage. This article provides factual, lasting and pertinent information and should be included. Wikimaui (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)— Wikimaui (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What you describe is exactly what promotion is; article subjects must be shown to meet notability guidelines(in this case, those for businesses) with independent reliable sources such as news reports, books, or anything published that can be verified. The mere existence of this business does not merit a page. I would add the few sources that have been offered are just business listings and do not show how the business is notable. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There's no assertion of notability, no independent references at all. This might qualify for speedy delete undder A7. The keep votes here are pretty bizarre and don't seem to be providing any rationale for keeping the article. mikeman67 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI it was speedied but the tags were removed. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until better can be found as this is also a new company so it's unlikely it would've gotten much coverage yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. I would stress to the newly created accounts supporting this article that there is no right to have an article on Wikipedia, and that our definition of notability may not be the same as they find in their dictionaries. It does to quite an extent depend on 'media coverage'. Mere existence is not enough, unlike at directories. Listings are not enough. Mentions in passing are not enough. This rules out quite a large number of businesses that work in 'behind the scenes' areas. Until there is a general consensus to do something about this, followed by a general consensus on what to do and how to do it, those businesses will have to remain left out. I would also point out to the new accounts that the closing admin may attach less weight to them, and the more of them there are, even less weight may be attached. This is not a head count vote. It is a discussion based on Wikipedia policies, not on the law of any country or any principle of justice outside Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexius08 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Ayorinde[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR JMHamo (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until better can be applied. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the article is a copyvio of her IMDb profile, with only a few words changed here and there and the promotional parts left in. This could probably be speedied for WP:G11 and WP:G12. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't really help that her roles so far have been minor ones, an appearance here and there on various shows but nothing that would be considered a major enough role to warrant a keep on that basis. I cannot find any coverage of her either, and the best I could find was this brief mention. The site isn't really the strongest either, as it tends to just aggregate news rather than write it themselves - meaning that they could be reposting material from other places that could lack editorial oversight - and AllAfrica doesn't really have a lot on their website about their editorial process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The "Keep" arguments are not based on Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lync Aronson[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prodded the article this morning for exactly that reason. Schwede 66 21:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is on our notice board but its being deleted? Created a account just to state that the reason for deletion does not at all apply.. Saw him at the Central library yesterday.DavidtheoneOG (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)— DavidtheoneOG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- NB - as pointed out by DavidtheoneOG, this account was specifically created to enter this discussion. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A prominent NZ public figure that we were tasks to create a wikipedia page for. Have worked with this person before in some other wiki pages. Very famous in Dunedin New Zealand, it is difficult to find a person who does not recognize him. Talked about in multiple sources as indicated in the included references. Unit388 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You say he is very famous in Dunedin, however it is unlikely he is famous enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). You need to prove it with reliable sources. Not just because you like him. NealeFamily (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NB - 20% of this wikipedian's 40 article edits have been to the article under discussion. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The edit summary for Unit388's first ever article edit, to Time dilation, ended with "- Lync". This doesn't prove that Unit388 is Lync Aronson, but it raises suspicions. Nurg (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Went to his wiki page from a link on the OUSA bio page to find it says its being deleted? Common guys who did this? This guy has been on national TV multiple times and is extremely well known in the wider Otago area and at my university..139.80.135.255 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove he meets the notability guidelines then NealeFamily (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unsuccessful candidate for vice-president of a university students' association and board member of a local charity makes this individual well below the project's notability threshold. I'm sympathetic to members of the local community who are aware of him and his actions, but Wikipedia's inclusion standards require nontrivial coverage by reliable, third-party sources, and that is simply not available here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So in New Zealand at least, university students by law are assigned to a student association. With that every student is required to pay a yearly fee. So we are talking about a multi-million dollar organization and by no means is it trivial. Also looking at the returns on the charity, while local the organization deals with hundreds of thousands per year so in a place like NZ, this charity is significant. It also serves 1/5 of New Zealands total land mass. Unit388 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to prove Lync Aronson meets the notability guidelines. The student association is more notable than him. NealeFamily (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sent here from link on cover page, I'm not even from NZ but we get all nz free view channels here and I have seen him on 3 news. Definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilso123 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An appearance on TV does not make him notable - read the notability guidelines NealeFamily (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NB - note that Dilso123 signed up for a WP account three minutes before joining this discussion. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He goes to my university and you can safely say he is known by most of our 30,000 students plus many more locals. Guess he should of waited before posting the wiki page link on the uni facebook..Lawstudies101 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 30,000? OU must have nearly doubled in size since the beginning of the year! Make that 19,000. Out of whom fewer that 400 voted for him. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While he may be known to some students at the university, that does not make him notable in a global sense. NealeFamily (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NB - note that Lawstudies101 signed up for a WP account four minutes before joining this discussion. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Delete Per nom, all the keep votes seem to be here through a sort of canvassing off-site and should be aware that it is not the number of votes that determine the outcome but the strength of the arguments based on Wikipedia policies. By this continued pile on without valid arguments besides I like him you only make everything more suspect. If you can provide reliable sources to help indicate his notability then do so otherwise you are not helping the case here. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor and local sources. Not at all encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SIGCOV. Insufficient coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not widely known here in Dunedin - known to a section of the University's student population, but that is hardly enough to justify an article. "lync aronson" -wikipedia -facebook returns a massive 7 ghits (by way of comparison, a similar search for my name returns 23000 ghits, and I also appear every now and again on nationwide television. I doubt I'd be worthy of an article). I'm also somewhat concerned by the number of accounts which have been created simply to join in this AfD discussion. I would advise those new wikipedians to look at WP:BIO, which will show clearly how far below notability this subject falls. In years to come, he may become famous enough for an article, but he certainly isn't yet. Grutness...wha? 06:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I realise when you see the same people on Geroge Street everyday it can appear that everyone in Dunedin is a celebrity, but this guy is not even slightly notable. -- haminoon (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know of this guy only because i'm from Dunedin, if you were to ask someone in Auckland who he is they wouldn't have a single clue!Drawdiggin101 (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interests of impartiality, I should report that Drawdiggin101 is a new Wikipedian too. Grutness...wha? 09:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those suggesting keep have no credible arguments - article fails notability requirement. NealeFamily (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable person despite the efforts of him and his friends to claim otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial independent coverage. As an article for an academic, fails WP:ACADEMIC. As an article for an aspiring politician... being an unsuccessful candidate for a position on a student union is about, or below, the level of being an unsuccessful candidate for a position on a city council: a level at which even successful candidates are generally not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dayglo Pirates[edit]

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

No third-party reliable sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 20:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better here. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NBAND. Nothing but Youtube, Wikipedia mirrors and reprints, blogs, and such. --Bejnar (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted De Boer[edit]

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

With the exception of the Cousins Q&A piece, this guy has no coverage and is completely NN. The Dissident Aggressor 20:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and BIO. Even the "Cousins Q&A piece" is not about him; it is simply him answering questions on a forum. Google search finds nothing - just social media and obituaries of other people with the same name. Could be redirected to Inventors Assistance League which he founded, but the notability of that organization may come into question as well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and MelanieN. Searches turned up nothing to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Gaviola[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television meteorologist, making no substantive claim of notability and citing not one iota of reliable source coverage — instead, it's a perfect example of the classic Wikipedia fallacy that one can just take the topic's PR profile from their employer's website, rewrite it just enough to slide under WP:COPYVIO, source it to itself and call that a Wikipedia article. With, of course, the added bonus that if they ever leave the employer in question, as Gaviola did several years ago, even that primary source becomes a deadlink. But as always, a person doesn't get a notability freebie on Wikipedia just because you can primary source the fact that they exist — it takes reliable source coverage, supporting a substantive claim of notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails GNG and BIO. No indication of notability at all, I wonder if this is possibly an A7 speedy delete candidate. mikeman67 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. No notability, not even a credible assertion of notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonim Technologies[edit]

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

Promotional article that does not meet notability requirements. No independent reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG was speedy deleted and recreated five times. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm simply not seeing much to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister. Can't find enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show notability. I haven't verified Crystallizedcarbon's assertion regarding the recreation after deletion stuff, but if accurate might not salting be appropriate? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policybazaar India[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP notability requirements. There are sources but they are overwhelmingly about routine business transactions such as funds moving around between companies. The section on their "present and future" is incredibly weak, with a WP:CRYSTAL statement on when they are expected to reach profitability, and mention of their advertising firm (!). In summary, WP:TOOSOON for an article on this organization. Brianhe (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 2013 Business Standard article source titled "From aggregation to distance marketing" superficially appears to be what we'd expect in a good corp article; however, it fails WP:ORGIND as basically a reprint of a softball interview with the CEO, with very little added information under the newspaper's editorial control. – Brianhe (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of website-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This company is notable and we can get enough coverage of it in independent media. Arguments like WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON may not apply here because company is already existing, any weak sections can be improved and any promotional matter can be removed. --Human3015^TALK 20:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't know who created it or what was his intention/relation with the company but the company is fairly notable, here are the citations at different times which proves its WP:CORP notability: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Mr RD 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just regurgitated the same types of sources, and in several instances the very same sources I said were bad, without saying why you think they illustrate notability. - Brianhe (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may have been a recreation of the previously deleted Policybazaar (deleted twice in 2009 and once in 2010). Brianhe (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously in 2009 and 2010 it was not notable company. But now it is. One of well known Indian celebrities like Kapil Sharma is brand ambassador of the company now. Read this new from India's largest Economic daily The Economic Times. Even they are calling it "popular insurance portal". Many sources are already given by one of above user. That news also says that Temasek Holdings of Singapore is investing in Policy Bazar.--Human3015^TALK 23:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if at all but this could also be drafted and userfied until better as the best I found with "Policybazaar India" was at Books, News and WP:INDAFD. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Sergecross73. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SonAmy (Fanfiction)[edit]

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

This doesn't quite fit into WP:A7 or I'd have nominated it for a speedy deletion. Pretty clear though that this is an unremarkable fan fiction "ship." --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Velir (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable web design company, article created by SPA-editor with a likely undisclosed COI. Sources in article are SPS, Sitecore "rankings" (see article: "Velir is currently one of the largest Sitecore Implementation Partners" ...) and 1 award from a marketing association. Typical PR fluff and no evidence of notability through independent in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 09:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While searches turned up lots of hits, it wasn't for the company with this name, which only produced mentions and press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dominion Enterprises. MBisanz ^talk 16:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Element[edit]

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

Page has been tagged since July 2010 as possibly non-notable. There's a ton of advertising on the page, and there seems to be a lack of any notable references. I think this fails WP:CORP. mikeman67 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any obvious signs of improvement here. Pinging VQuakr and Mindmatrix. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dominion Enterprises. Not enough here to merit a merge, but a sentence in the article on the parent company is probably due. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is mostly a source problem. Initially, the sources looked like a good mix. But Digital Element isn't even really mentioned in the ones that would be most reliable/verifiable, and I can't find any others.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Not enough in the searches to show they meet either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Klass[edit]

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

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

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

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

non notable podcaster. NYT ref has an in-passing mention, but the rest are all selfpub or blogs. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article and better sources can be found. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete David Condrey ^{log talk} 00:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional and updated links added recently. Why is this page, up since 2007, suddenly up for deletion? What has changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.101.238 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nominator comment (possible weak keep) The subject of the article has added several sources, which may indicate possible notability. The Christian Science Monitor article is definately an in depth source and if there were 3-4 more like it this would be an easy keep. That article plus the wgbh interview and the in-passing book refs make me rethink this a bit, but its certainly very marginal. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the podcasting world this guy is a legend and has significance to the original podcast community. These cult hero's need to stay to show that podcasting was one about stories the avarage person was telling and not part of the big media machine of today. JBignell (talk)

+1 to Keep I know Dan from my days as a podcaster and he is, indeed, one of the legends of the podcasting world. Talk of deleting this page is unworthy of Wikipedia. parkylondon (talk)Parkylondon (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Parkylondon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Mr. Klass co-authored a book about podcasting called "Podcast Solutions" which went to #26 on Amazon in the category designated for its topic - making him a subject matter expert. Mr. Klass was one of very few early podcasters and his podcast is still running after 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robusdin (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Robusdin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as per nom. Even the New York Times piece is only a glancing mention - hardly notability. I am just curious where suddenly editors who haven't edited for years, or ever before, suddenly come from ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is one in-depth Reliable Source article about him: the Christian Science Monitor. There is a New York Times article that gives him a short paragraph, as it does half a dozen other people. The rest of the references are self-referential or non-Reliable. I don't think this amounts to notability as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad to think that to be a "notable podcaster." you have to be mainstream! When the whole idea began it was an underground radio listened to by a niche internet user. Some of the best podcast in the early days where not mainstream or even looked at by major media. I remember talking to my web developer in 2005, who told me podcasting will be a "flash in a pan", and don't waste my time with it. Today people have made their careers around podcasting. JBignell (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and several of the above editors, particularly Velella and MelanieN, whose assessment and observations are spot on.
I don't care anymore, please just make it stop - Hey, all. Dan Klass here. Non-noteworthy subject of this page (and its dispute). Dont' worry, I'm not here to argue the page be kept up. Over the past week or so, I've learned a lot about Wikipedia's policies on proving if someone is "Notable" enough to have their own article. My article on Lance Anderson never stood a chance. Doesn't look like this one does either. You guys have yor guidelines and you stick by them, so debate seems futile. But, before this conversation comes to an end, I'd love to ask, for the record, do any of you know WHY Wikipedia holds these pages to those specific requirements (3-5 "in-depth articles)? I know why there are guidelines. That's so you can edit pages on topics you know nothing about. Do you know WHY the MO of so many editors is to delete pages rather than simply verify the information? I am very curious, on a much larger scale, to know what it is Wikipedia is protecting by not including articles (rather, excluding articles) on minor or unreported players in major events/discoveries/trends/etc. Why is it important to have fewer pages/articles? Thank you for any insight you have in this matter. And, thanks to everyone who threw in their two cents re: keeping the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danklass (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer Dan is that as an editor you are free to join in and help set the rules, change the rules, persuade others and make Wikipedia what you think it ought to be . All the rules are established by the consensus of editors. There is no major cabal or omnipotent force out there - its just us. If we've got it wrong, then it can be changed. Persuade us. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Velella, I'll try. :) So, I understand all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, which is obviously a given. Where I get hung up is the value judgment of whether or not the subject of an article is "notable" enough to warrant its page. The guidelines, as they were explained to me by another editor, include a requirement of "3-5 in-depth articles." But, if a person has had three to five in-depth articles written about them I don't need Wikipedia to find out about them. Google might easily cough up those articles in a simple search. Where Wikipedia could really be a useful tool is in fining information about people who have NOT been covered in-depth in the media. For example, I went to school with a guy named Glenn Green who is now a professor at the University of Michigan and one of the leading Otolaryngologists in the country. He has made amazing recent breakthroughs in the use of 3-D printed shunts and other custom-made medical devises, saving lives and restoring senses as he goes. As far as I can tell, he would not qualify as "notable" in Wikipedia. Why? Because his work is so extraordinary, the work gets all the ink, not him. What he *does* is notable, but is he? Okay, maybe that's a bad example, since nobody would argue that someone isn't notable if they're restoring hearing to children with plastic tubes. Here's a more practical example. I created a page recently for the podcaster Lance Anderson. Now, it's being argued that he is not "notable." BUT, his name and accomplishments are "noted" on several other pages in Wikipedia. Why wouldn't that automatically dictate that the site needs a page for him? Doesn't it follow that the site is stronger if each name referred to had a link to a page specific to that person? What is the downside of me being able to click on Lance's name in the "History of Podcasting" and going to his page? What is the upside of NOT having a page specific to Lance? Again, nobody is arguing whether or not he is part of the history of podcasting, only whether it is notable within the context of the general public. His notability within the context of podcasting doesn't seem relevant to the current editors of Wikipedia, or they'd just take the word of an expert in the field (yours truly) and move on. Instead there is a layer of value judgment, base on what other journalists have written extensively about. In my experience with the news media, they never get the whole story. How could they? Mainstream media is limited by time and available print space. Wikipedia is not. The mainstream media will never be able to cover a topic in the depth it deserves. But, Wikipedia CAN. Couldn’t we proceed as if Wikipedia is a warehouse of all knowledge? If so, then even an "in-passing mention" would warrant a person being included in Wikipedia. The author of the article thought the person was worthy of "noting" in the article, who are we to judge that as not noteworthy enough? Information is information. Would Wikipedia be weaker or stronger with more articles on people? Would it crumble under it's own weight if everyone were listed? I doubt it. Each page is, what, 40k? Danklass (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, I understand your frustration, and I'll try to explain. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. As such, it summarizes what is already on the public record. It does not publish original research, or write articles about subjects that "have not been covered in-depth by the media" or other reliable secondary sources. There are plenty of other places on the internet that do promote relatively unknown people or ideas, but not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is by its very definition "mainstream", that is, verifiable by independent reliable sources, which includes not just the media but books, scholarly journals, etc. Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, is absolutely not a place where you can find information about people who have not been covered elsewhere. We write about people AFTER they become notable, not before. As you noted we do have an extensive article at History of podcasting, and many of the early players are mentioned there, whether or not they have enough outside coverage for an article of their own. So if an article of interest to you gets deleted, you can still add information about them to other relevant articles. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, I think I have a different vision for the depth of Wikipedia than the editors do. I am not suggesting Wikipedia cover unknowns. I'm suggesting that when an expert in a field writes an article about someone who has received "in-passing mentions" in several major media, that that person might warrant their own article within Wikipedia. I seek to expand Wikipedia, you all seem to want to limit Wikipedia. Yes, "we" write about people AFTER they become notable, and then someone comes along and puts the page up for deletion. Why must the site simply be a reflection of the dying mass media? They don't know who's notable unless they read it in a press release. Mainstream? Yes. But we're no longer bound to old definitions of mainstream. I look to widen the stream. You are building dams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danklass (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LA Podcasters[edit]

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

non notable podcasting club/organization Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's not much better aside from searches with adding "Lance Anderson" some links at Books and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Part of the original podcasting community. Why remove so many pages of our podcasting history? This show was one of the first and some of the best content from that time period, it's a classic program, before major media jumped in and killed the small podcasters. I think it was in the 10 itunes podcast and featured in Podcast Pickle. JBignell (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it was so relevant, where are the sources? Nothing I could find in the search engines shows it passes WP:GNG. SwisterTwister's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonostatistical distances between Basque and other languages[edit]

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

non notable topic Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially, this is the data from a single conference paper. The paper almost-but-not-quite implies a relationship between Basque and the Turkic language family. But unless that hypothesis gets more traction in the literature, that's simply too minor a viewpoint to even warrant inclusion at Basque language#Hypotheses on connections with other languages. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, that's certainly a very specific topic. In any event, we can't have Wikipedia pages for every minor study that gets published. Maybe if this theory really took off, sure, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - It seems like we don't even have an article for phonostatistics. What about the possibility to create such an article and to merge? There are also many other studies avaible in Russian and English language. I tried to add this into the article Basque language before, but it was denied, because the study is regarded as "pseudo-scientific".--Talgatovthe2nd (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create the phonostatistics article? I could see this study being cited in phonostatistics, if such an article existed. But the phonostatistics article would have to contain its own sources, independent of this study. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To create the phonostatistics article would be the better solution, yes. But it will take much time. Is it possible to transfer this study to a sandbox page?--Talgatovthe2nd (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. I made a copy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cosmic_Sans/Sandbox/Phonostatistics_Study Feel free to use that, or make your own sandbox page if you want. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially a restatement of original research of an exceedingly specific variety, and falls under the WP:ORIGINAL guideline.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Product.01[edit]

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

NN band. Fails all 12 criteria of WP:BAND with the possible exception of #11 (Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network) - which is claimed but I've been unable to verify. This article was previously loaded with puffery and this claim may be specious. The Dissident Aggressor 18:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing anything to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches don't show they pass WP:GNG, and even if #11 were true (which I can't find verification for), that would only mean they may be notable. If that were the only reason, I would say they don't pass WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let me know if you need the content userfying. Black Kite (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Anderson (podcaster)[edit]

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

non notable podcaster. all refs to self published or unreliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lance was/is a first wave LA podcaster and as such notable for the History of Podcasting. The theatre where his live show was performed in the UK have archive records. Likewise, when Cambridge University INVITE an American podcaster to speak, this is definately of note. Please contact CARET (Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies) at Cambridge University for confirmation. Lance also wrote and edited for Podcast User magazine. I strongly oppose any attempt to delete the work of Lance Anderson AND all the LA Podcasters. They all were an important part of OUR social podcasting history. Gaijin42 - Please tell me what YOU were doing in 2006? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.176.211 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I name is Dan Klass and I am the person who created this page last weekend. I have been using Wikipedia for many years, but this was my first attempt at creating a page. While learning how to create links, I cut and pasted code from other Wikpeidia pages, and did not realize I was using old/dead links on the Lance Anderson page. Those links have been updated. Also, if need be, I can include links to television news stories where he was featured. At this pont I am having trouble finding links to other articles on Anderson, as over the past decade many sites have shut down or news organizations have put their archives behind pay-walls.

My hope at this point is that we are not confusing notibility with fame. Lance Anderson is not famous, but his notibility when it comes to the history of podcasting is undeniable. "Fame" is fleeting and depends on the current recognizability of a person. Notibility is based on someone's contributions and does not wain with time. Notibility is part of history, fame is part of pop culture. As someone who has worked in the field of podcasting since its birth, as a content producer, personality and author, I feel I am very well equiped to determine who is and who isn't notible with regards to the history of podcasting. Perhaps I have not done a good enough job at estabilishing Anderson's notibility for the editors. Instead of immediately threatening to delete the page (and apparently the LA Podcasters page and my page), perhaps you could help us keep these pages up to Wikipedia standards. I believe you are doing Wikipedia more good by keeping and strengthening pages than by deleting them.

Anderson's influence on podcasting is evident both here in the US and around the world. Please let me know how much time I have to find additional references, etc. before the page is deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danklass (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danklass we are not confusing notability with fame. You are confusing notability with importance though. There are many important people who are not notable. There are many notable people who are not important. Wikipedia gauges notability by having been noticed in reliable sources. Beyond notability, as a WP:BLP we must make sure that the information in our article is correct. Paywalls are not a barrier for being a wikipedia source. If you are aware of articles behind paywalls, you may still use them as sources. In general AFDs run for 7 days from the submission (I submitted this one on the 13th). however, quite often such discussions are extended for another 7 days if there has not been strong turnout or there are conflicting opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy to article creator's space. Not finding enough notability online. Perhaps there are other sources which could be incorporated into the article. Even on books there are several books dedicated to podcasting, there is one good source, but the rest are passing mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven E. Greer, MD[edit]

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

resume spam. almost all refs BY subject, not about subject. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note was redirected to Stephen E Greer by someone else, but redirect target, is not noticeably better. I will try to transcode the AFD to the second page too. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom-there were a bunch of tags on here that were removed as well that looks like they were restored. Anyway-can't find much notability and sounds like a resume as someone put a tag for. Wgolf (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I redirected it because both articles were identical. That is not an endorsement to keep the article. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously tagged this article with multiple issues including resume. It seems not to pass WP:GNG and is missing WP:RS and would need to be rewritten anyway. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has many problems, but Greer appears to have had a variety of careers, and is potentially notable with the addition of secondary sources and wikilinks in the article and elsewhere to negate the orphan tag.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hmm, I'm simply not seeing anything convincing for keeping as my searches found nothing better and would need WP:TNT to be better. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately, agree with due diligence research by SwisterTwister, Wgolf, and Jersey92, above. — Cirt (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically there's a clear majority to keep, but I'm not sure we can call this a consensus, as I don't think everybody is talking about the same content: the "delete" side wants to delete the content, which they consider a redundant list of incidents, and the "keep" side wants to retain the topic in the very broad sense of an article about the recent wave of violence, although no clear idea emerges from the discussion about what it should contain and how it should be titled. Accordingly, the page is being heavily edited. I suppose we'll have to see if any sort of rough consensus about what the article should be about emerges at the editorial level; if not, a renomination is a possibility. Sandstein 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015)[edit]

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

We have lists of violent attacks by both sides of the conflict (List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 and List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015) as we have lists for years past (eg List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014). This is strictly a listing of violent actions committed by Palestinians against Israelis, so it is a pretty straightforward WP:POVFORK from those lists. That the list in this article is presented in paragraph form doesn't make it not a list, it's nearly entirely a listing of attacks. Nableezy 17:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some editing on this page earlier today to try to fix the numerous issues and put in some maintenance tags. I agree with what you're saying, and I think the page might need to be deleted. I do think there should be a page on the latest violence though, something similar to 2009 Temple Mount riots or 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign, although this title would likely not work. I think it's acknowledged widely that the most recent events is some sort of discrete event (although at this point I think it's far too early to call it a Third Intifada on WP). There might be something salvageable if this page was simply moved and purged of much of its content. mikeman67 (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is so POV-ridden that it defines dates by the Jewish calendar (appropriately on the Hebrew Wikipedia perhaps, but not in a global encyclopedia), uses Judea and Samaria for the default West Bank determined by ARBCOM. It wasn't written by anyone but is a paste and copy of the farcial article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, which labours under the impression that there is only one actor in the violence, Palestinians, and one victim, all this in an article whose title suggests there are two narratives. Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no question, there are major POV issues. Just was wondering if there's something salvageable, if at all possible. But perhaps there isn't. mikeman67 (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No shortage of reasons. The current content is an unattributed copy-paste from the Hebrew Wikipedia, as the bracketed numbers that used to be citations suggest. Accordingly, from a strict perspective, this content is a copyright violation and should be deleted on those grounds. The version prior to the copyright violation is not really any better: a demonstrably-biased accounting of events that also serves as a POVFORK of the articles indicated by the nominator. Because the only text in the article history that isn't flawed from a copyright attribution perspective is instead flawed from an NPOV perspective that does not lend itself to correction, there's nothing here to salvage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical point, any article on wiki, irrespective of whether it draws on inter-wiki borrowings or not, should be edited gradually by point by point control of every source introduced. This has been violated grossly here, as noted above. Wiki is not a reliable source. Its reliability is based on careful composition on the basis of a close reading of extra-wiki RS. Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, WP:CWW means that copying from one location to another is fine if attributed (Copyvio is the wrong term as Hebrew wiki is open content also) POV may apply, but Copyvio is not a deletion reason.-- Callinus (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the latest events. --Midrashah (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nishidani, If one thinks its one sided, he may edit it and not delete it--Midrashah (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two-sided account already exists, as Nableezy noted, and it is thorough, with 300 footnotes. This has 4 Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FORK of List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015.GreyShark (dibra) 20:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above there are already two pages identical to this one covering the January-June and July-December.Prohibited Area (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to argue for deletion of an article on a topic with this much news coverage and impact. Move to an extremely neutral title, something like Escalation of violence, Israel and Palestinian territories - Fall 2015 Define a starting point, this: [11]. Haaretz article chose early September, which pegs these events to new Israeli restrictions on an aggressive group of activists on the Temple Mount. Improve the article. Clearly User:Mikeman67 is correct in suggesting that the last three Or four weeks constitute a specific event - a month ago would anyone have imagined that so many teenagers would suddenly start attacking strangers in the street with kitchen knives? The recent spate of articles [12] on the role of viral videos validate the idea that the events of the last few weeks are a novel and intrinsically notable phenomenon. The 2 articles cited by User:GreyShark, List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, are lists. Lists have their uses, but they are not articles. What is called for here is an article that addresses the nature of the events of September and October, explores causes, discusses responses by Israeli and Palestinian authorities, and, please God, ends as the number of violent incidents declines. User:Mikeman67 is correct that 2009 Temple Mount riots and 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign constitute valid models. I propose that we KEEP this article. Closing this AFD will encourage editors to give this topic the article it merits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing there worth keeping, and as a plagiarized page without notes it lacks any claim to seriousness.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

STRONG keep While the article needs a POV cleanup and sourcing in its horrid state, the content of the article is vEry important as this is not just a spaTe of incidents or a list. Its a much wider phenomena currently ongoing. A Third Intifada perhaps?Lihaas (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTE Since the above mentioned comments , I have drastically changed the article [13] to be more neutral and called for more expansion/citations (which were non-existent before).Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are ignoring all of the technical arguments (a) this began as a plagiarized article (b) it has no substantial notes (c) it is machine translated (d) its title falsifies the content, since it is about the events of October not about the whole year so far (e) the events of the whole year are already extensively documented in 2 existing articles. (f)It began as, and remains, an article focused on Palestinian attacks on Israelis, which the lead then asserted was typical of 2014, and 2015 (no source), without any context for the Israeli pattern of violence. You are suggesting we save an article because, essentially, if we do, all of these flaws will be fixed in the future. I know virtually crap will survive AfDs in the IP area if it is of the Israeli victim type, but this is patently ridiculous. Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia serves the information needs of users (not governments) - there should be information somewhere that attempts to give a basic overview of the previous issues in the last, say, 15 years after the Second Intifada, Temple Mount entry restrictions etcetera, and perhaps Silent Intifada or some other background on violence in 2014, esp after 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.

Sourcing from Israeli gov sources has major POV and COI issues.

List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 has an NPOV tag on the "background" section. But it's important information for readers who have limited understanding of the issue. -- Callinus (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the cleaning mentioned just above the background section does indeed mention the wikilinks you said above. as for the Gaza conlict that is not directly relevent here (otherwise every issue in the peace process/conflict would need to be mentioned...although we can add one of the templates).

I also tried removing the MFA link, but someone wanted it so I merged in to complement the rest (of course wording will change).Lihaas (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per recent events. Clearly notable. Also article shape status and deletion is not the same thing. A notable article that is in a bad shape should be c/e not deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after recent changes made to the page. I think it should be kept as a regular page on the subject which, unlike lists, provides description of the historical events in a different order and logic. Having list does not make a regular page on the same subject a content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the bunch of WP:MEMORIAL articles like Lions' Gate stabbings. Murabitat can also be combined here, since the group's only importance is in connection to the al-Aqsa events. As I said elsewhere, the latest events deserve an article, I am not sure exactly what form it should take. In an ideal world people will wait a bit before creating encyclopedia articles, but we don't live in that world. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a stop for understanding recentish events. Simply having a list of attacks on both sides does not give an interested reader a good overview. One can also identify important triggers in between the violence. The major things which salient in an ideal article should be the recent disturbances regarding al-Aqsa (the background regarding this goes back at least a year and more). Also the disturbances last year should be mentioned. And the overall situation regarding East Jerusalem etc. Gaza is not yet fully involved but several people were killed there, and a bit of the background there should also be mentioned. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you suggest to merge a bunch of other pages into this page? Hence, do you mean to keep this page? If so, I think the best course of action would be to mark these other pages for merging and discuss. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent events have made the uptick in violence notable in it's own right. A list or timeline does not cover these events in detail, and makes them seem like there are run of the mill attacks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article covers notable recent events. It should be modified and filled out than deleted wholesale if there are content concerns. Rmosler | ● 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Simply just to vex Isreal and her supporters. and to prove that Wikipedia is one western information outlet that IS NOT entirely manipulated by Israel and her western allies. What happened to the right of FREEDOM OF SPEACH PEOPLE?! Does the alarm only ring on the "DRAW MUHAMMAD" day?! --علي سمسم (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find this reflex vote in the face of an unbelievably stupid piece of text hard to understand. Are people sensitive to what sentences, piled on one after another, mean? or mangle? Let me construe just the first:

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict refers to a series of events that occurred in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2015. In this year, and especially in its summer^{[citation needed]} and autumn months, there was an escalation of violence in Jerusalem and the West Bank^{[citation needed]} in response to continuous Palestinian accusations, with Abbas's speech to the General Assembly of the UN of 2015 as the straw that broke the camel's back,^{[citation needed]} about Temple Mount restrictions. In their statements, Palestinians accuse Israel of Temple Mount status quo violations, which are denied by the Israeli government. Jewish settlers and security forces clashed with Palestinians including arson incidents and shootings and raids. Palestinians stabbing attacks occurred almost daily,^{[citation needed]} as well as vehicle ramming, molotov cocktail and stone-throwings^{[citation needed]} are the most common. Following the restrictions during Rosh Hashanah, in September and October a drastic escalation of violence occurred

The term Israeli Palestinian conflict does not refer to events in 2015. That is a nonsense sentence, sitting there uncorrected.
There is no evidence given there was an escalation in summer
That there was an escalation of violence (by Palestinians) in East Jerusalem in October is known. That there was an escalation of violence in the West Bank is undocumented.
The hypothetical 'escalation' is in response to , um . . continuous Palestinian accusations. The word 'continuous' is incorrect: it means 'never ending', not, as appears to be contextually the desired word, 'repeated'.
The meaning of the preceding sentence is itself bizarre, implying that the violence (by Palestinians) escalated as a response to never ending Palestinian accusations. I.e. one expects that the violence is to be a response to something Israeli does: no, the Palestinian violence is a Palestinian response to Palestinian accusations. Christ!!! Doesn't anyone notice the obvious stupidity here?
There's an attempt to pin down some responsibility. Abbas addressed the UN and this was 'the straw that broke the camel's back', an hilarious metaphor, but we don't know whose camel's back was broken, Israel's or Palestine's. If Palestine's, then his speech broke his own people's camel's back, and they reacted by a kind of intifada? One doesn't know.
All of a sudden here, the meaning of the article, which should apply to the events of the whole year, reveals itself. Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) in the lead means, 'events triggered by Abbas's 'incedndiary incitement' at the UN. Who said this? The editor.
'In their statements, Palestinians accuse' i.e. whenever Palestinians talk, they do nothing but discuss and accuse Israel'. Sheer ineptness.
'Jewish settlers and security forces clashed with Palestinians including arson incidents and shootings and raids.'

That is an hilariously bad sentence. It is a preliminary brief sop (the intended meaning being that, yeah, there's been a few incidents of Jewish violence but')

'Palestinians stabbing attacks occurred almost daily' (this has sense only for October, not for the explicit time span in the article title.

Do those voting read the article? Have they a literacy level beyond primary school? This is perhaps the most inanely inept piece of drafting I've seen in donkey's ages, and the majority approves of it as showing great promise! Well done Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTCLEANUP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Calm down. it is a reflex vote, I never read the article. I changed my vote to delete and it is still a valid vote even if it just a reflex. I didn't realize you on the Palestinian side until I revised your views on other articles. I don't read the English Wikipedia at all to get any political view on the conflict concerning Israel-Palestine simply because its full of bullshit. the pro-Israel side gather like hyenas and attack in numbers. They do capitulate on their native tongue and the victims' language barrier and fill the English Wikipedia with fallacies and bullshit lies!--علي سمسم (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'Calm down. it is a reflex vote, I never read the article.' One should never engage in reflex votes: it is obligatory to read thoroughly the evidence, which includes the article's form and content, before making a call. I don't care which way a vote goes: I am amazed that most votes ignore the obvious state of total inadequacy for an encyclopedic article. Thanks for your honesty. I'd advise you to strike out that generic remarks about 'pro-Israeli' editors. There's nothing wrong with being pro-Israel, as long as it doesn't translate into deceptive editorial practices.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep*. Per reasons given by E.M Gregory: Hard to argue for deletion of an article on a topic with this much news coverage and impact.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I don't know why this comes as a surprise as events that have received in depth coverage within larger events have been made into articles before. The uptick in violence, and the non WP:ROUTINE attacks is what is gathering the coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again neither of you is reading the article, which has numerous glaring violations of policy and which belies its title: the article is about the so called Third Intifada, content-wise, not about events (on both sides) for the period 2015, and therefore the article's title is a gross misnomer.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, im sorry but deletion isn't cleanup as there is nothing stopping an editor from starting a title move discussion, and improving the content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep* Like many others above pointed out, the topic is both important, timely AND missing adequate coverage on the subject. Some news networks began running interactive maps days ago in anticipation of the probable escalation of violence, and unfortunately the truth is this is likely to continue and have serious repercussions for events in the larger 'conflict'. So yes, definitely keep, even if a renaming discussion will have to follow. Skycycle (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This wave of violence is follow by a huge media coverage and plenty of analysis to understand it. It even got a "name", the knife Intifada. We don't know yet if it going to last, and no one hope to, but it is already famous enough for an article. Kormin (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should however be merged with the Silent Intifada article, so as to rename it to "Israeli-Palestinian unrest, 2014-15"? There have been other attacks between the "Silent intifada" events and the attacks happening now? To me it seems a bit illogical to create a new page for each little spike in violence, and not show that it's part of a bigger trend since last year. At least, we should put most of the contents from the Silent Intifada page into the background of this one, and keep it how it is. Unless anyone has other suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.227.29 (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow-Ray Editora[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a recently founded book publisher. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available sources. - Mr X 17:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as it seems obvious this new company is not set for a better article yet. Pinging Knowledgekid87. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had originally tagged this as having issue with notability, if this hadn't been placed up for AfD I would have prodded it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:G7, "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: Author of only substantial content to the page blanked." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rovier carrington[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Does not appear to be a notable writer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist Research[edit]

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

Major contributor appears to be an SPA, and only link on page has a trivial mention of an employee at the firm. Seems to be some sort of advertorial type page. No coverage came up when I did my own search. Seems like this fails WP:CORP. mikeman67 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No non-trivial coverage of the business. There are quite a few extremely-passing mentions, because its founder was formerly head of corporate market research at Amazon, and has been occasionally quoted in media about his time in that capacity. There are also quite a few false positives; so far as I can determine, all of the scholarly journals that include the phrase "zeitgeist research" do so in some capacity other than this business. Honestly, I'm struggling to find a reliable, independent source that even describes so much as what this company does, much less supports an article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I haven't even started looking closely at this but it seems obvious alone there's not much for an article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSee[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and I don't believe there are any reliable, independent, in-depth sources provided. There actually is a product called "EyeSee" that has been covered in the press, but appears to be unrelated to this. My own searches turn up nothing on this company. I think this fails WP:CORP. mikeman67 (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister. Like Mikeman67, I feel it appears that the hits I get on search engines do not relate to this topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Minute Heist[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no in-depth secondary sources, just database and listing appearances, a "Biltmore Muse Pictures is excited to announce" press release and a review that (from its byline) is either anonymous or written by the film's producer. Doesn't quite meet any criteria of WP:NFILM, being shown at a festival only two years after release. McGeddon (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when the movie's only reviews come from Amazon.com, that's not a good sign. The other links on the page aren't reliable, and are anyways trivial and not in-depth really. mikeman67 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC) ---Another review, one from an independent film critic, has been added. The bigger film rating sites (IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc) tend to neglect smaller budget films, especially those that do not make a theatrical run.[reply]
Delete: As per nominator, article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Ayub407^talk 16:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Little new at this so sorry if I'm doing this in the wrong format, but this is a strong award-winning entry into the world of independent films. Does it pick up as much press as a higher profile movie? Certainly not. But it has been successful and multiple platforms and most films that fit that criteria have a Wikipedia page. Don't think the questionable lack of notability threatens the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattducey (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 October 2015‎

— Note to closing admin: Mattducey (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

I asked on your talk page a month ago whether the award-shaped blobs on the DVD cover meant that the film had won any significant awards, as these may establish notability - has it? An article seeming WP:HARMLESS is not by itself a reason to keep it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Only just saw your post on my talk page. The three awards at the top of the DVD cover are the ones listed in the awards section (Best Screenplay 2007 Hollywoodscripts.com, Best New Director 2009 New York Independent Film and Video Festival, and Best Actor 2009 New York Independent Film and Video Festival. I think particularly the latter two establish its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattducey (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy if needed. The New York Independent Film and Video Festival was a minor festival which received heavy criticism for its lack of objectivity by sources as the Village Voice and Indiewire. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a Matt Ducey has been going around the internet leaving positive reviews of this film on various internet sites, e.g., [14], [15], and [16]. If someone has a financial motive in this film that should be disclosed, per WP:COI. mikeman67 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volume spread analysis[edit]

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

Article has been single-sourced to the creator's website since 2009. I can find no additional WP:RS to indicate any coverage by stock trading websites, magazines, or scientific journals. shoy (reactions) 15:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything myself either. No indication of notability, seems like it pretty clearly fails GNG. mikeman67 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find anything other than its website. Ayub407^talk 16:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also unable to find sources myself. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least until a better article can be made as the best I found was this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After article's improvement, consensus is a clear keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Anatolievich Babkin[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Under the criteria of A7 as the person is not notable. Ayub407^talk 16:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Keep:Article has improved now as it meets the notability guidelines. Ayub407^talk 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A7 states no credible claim of significance, not notability. The credible claim of significance in this article is that he's a co-chairman and organizer of a registered, federal political party in Russia. That's easily enough to satisfy A7. Whether it's notable, of course, is for the AfD process. Appable (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appable, I keep on getting confused between credible claim of significance and notability whenever referring to A7. It wont happen how. Ayub407^talk 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayub407 Are you aware the current improvements? SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, I'm aware of it now. Ayub407^talk 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this has better improved and is more noticeably acceptable now. Delete in any case until a better article can be made. Pinging Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notable person, chairman of a sizeable political party in Russia. Plenty of coverage. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21],[22] —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as a member the regional Duma. All legislators are considered notable here. It helps to read the article in detail. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Williams's (stock trader)[edit]

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

Only notability appears to be an author and creator of Volume spread analysis. Our article on Volume spread analysis has been single-sourced to the creator's website since 2009 and gives no indication as to its use or acceptance. I can find no additional sources about Tom Williams the person, even if he does pass WP:NAUTHOR#2 my vote is still to delete for lack of WP:RS. If a redirect is necessary, it should be at Tom Williams and not at this misspelled title. shoy (reactions) 15:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am offering no opinion on the deletion issue; however, if someone notes that some of the text appears to match text in this site, Please note the site owner is prepared to provide a suitable license for the text. I am going to hold off processing the permission pending resolution of the deletion question.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the only reference does not seem reliable or independent. fails notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article would seem acceptable but is going need to better work and with there being no chances of it, there's nothing to suggest keeping at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence for notabvility of either hthe person or his method.The book listed in the article is not even in WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noriyuki Tsuzuki[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ANYBIO. There is a person with the same name who is a news analyst on North Korea. This is not that person. Jbh ^Talk 15:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I cannot find enough coverage to show notability criteria are met. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bex Marshall[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:MUSICBIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR JMHamo (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a news search brings up this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc etc Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ritchie333, it does establish notability. Ayub407^talk 16:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ritchie333 - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under speedy deletion criterion G11 as the purpose of the article is to promote a point of view. I see that an earlier version of the article has already been speedily deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of a Thug[edit]

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

Article is a POV essay that violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 High five. Like with any merge the article gets redirected anyway, Closing as merge (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National High Five Day[edit]

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

Article was written (aside from the "technical" author who made a redirect to the High five page) by an editor with an obvious NPOV/COI username who was also blocked for spam. The article is not written in an encyclopedic tone nor does it establish any notability of any kind. It doesn't even bother to wikilink to high five until someone on that page linked to here today. JesseRafe (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC) JesseRafe (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've cleared out the promotional material, but so far I'm not really seeing a heavy amount of coverage. We do have coverage out there over a period of years, but it's fairly light overall and most of it repeats the same information: this event exists, this is who claims to have started it, they do charity events. I suppose that I could argue for it to have its own article since there is coverage from a few years back, but I'm leaning towards merging it into the main article for high fives. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would agree that this truncated form would work as a small independent section on the high five page. JesseRafe (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indicia of notability. Neutrality^talk 05:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Virginia as Books and browser found some links but I'm not sure how it is should be merged. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to High five. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Issue is where. No offense to SwisterTwister, but in this instance, I think the more appropriate target is High five, per Northamerica1000. Definitely not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article, but enough to include current contents in the parent article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Per North America1000, merge and redirect this article to High five. Ayub407^talk 16:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as noted below High/Secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Public School[edit]

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

Article about a secondary school with no indication, claim, or evidence of notability. KDS4444^Talk 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and years and years of debates on this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All secondary schools are notable -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 15:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Capankajsmilyo, All secondary schools are notable. Ayub407^talk 17:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close The nominator appears to have been unaware of the notability requirements as per secondary schools. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kul/kool[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY KDS4444^Talk 15:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator, Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY so hence, it should be deleted. Ayub407^talk 17:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a description of an contour canal used for water supply, which appears not to be widely covered elsewhere in Wiki. At most this needs an expansion or a redirect. Anmccaff (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Word already exists on Wiktionary. If there is a better citation for this definition, it should be added there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Margaret[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND JMHamo (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and BAND. Jbh ^Talk 10:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O Nanna Nalle[edit]

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

Article includes no references to support a notability claim. Without the addition of multiple, reliable, independent, and nontrivial sources, Wikipedia cannot retain such an article. KDS4444^Talk 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indeed the article looks very bad, but it's a movie by a famous director, with a famous lead actress, and it was a hit at the box office. Biwom (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "O Nanna Nalle"

Keep this brand new suitable stub on notable topic... a released film that has received review and commentary in multiple reliable sources. Nominator, a topic's notability is NOT determined by sources being used, but instead rather by sources BEING AVAILABLE, used or not. And just a little due diligence quickly finds Sify Rediff Sify and others. WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy two important criteria: (1) Film that's completed filming. (2) Has received good deal secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/pages/noise.aspx" North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced approach[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a vaguely defined topic that does not appear to have attracted the attention of multiple, reliable, independent sources. KDS4444^Talk 15:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyright violation. Copied completely from the International Civil Aviation Organization website. The topic though would be a good addition to Aircraft noise. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "nothing solid to suggest better" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graphis Press Ltd.[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH JMHamo (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing solid to suggest better. Pinging Clpo13, Jimfbleak and Ritchie333. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. High/Secondry schools are always kept per SO so closing as Speedy, Probably shouldn't but whatever (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler plant boys higher secondary school[edit]

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

Articles on secondary schools do not usually meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. This unreferenced article does not appear to be an exception. KDS4444^Talk 15:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, existing references and its appearance on this Tamil Nadu school listing.[23] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. WP:GEOBIAS is of relevance here. Thousands of articles exist for US secondary schools but schools in the Global South keep getting nominated for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus and precedent, which says that, on the contrary, secondary schools do usually meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a secondary school, it exists, and we keep these. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES provides documentation on this tradition. Jacona (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Health Professions Appeal and Review Board[edit]

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

This looks to me like an entirely ordinary regulatory agency, not worth an article: if the title mentioned Ontarion it moight be redirectable but as it stands, way too generic. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article can be improved and fixed through normal editing. The creator of the article and other editors should be given more time to develop the article. WP:Articles for deletion is a guideline that states that discussion about problems with the article should take place on the article's talk page before the article is nominated for deletion. This has not been done. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 02:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your keep you need to provide some rationale not just provide a wikilawyer lecture to the nominator. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moved it to Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, as proper noun. Plenty of secondary source coverage easily found. — Cirt (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing a title because it is "too generic", when that title meets WP:CRITERIA and has no issue with WP:DISAMBIGUATION, makes no sense. Deleting it for that reason is completely unwarranted. Of course a regulatory agency cited in secondary sources (per Cirt) is sufficiently notable to have an article. --В²C ☎ 01:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject but needs to be renamed. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is really "Delete for now, and userfy" but I don't see any obvious volunteers to work on this. If anybody would like to take on incubating and improving this, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be happy to restore it into your user space. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jwalantham[edit]

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

All of the references that appear in this article are links to WP:ROUTINE movie websites that list the cast and summarize the plot. None of them are to places where the movie is critically discussed. As it stands, the article does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG, and would require multiple reliable independent and non-trivial/ routine sources (preferably placed inline rather than listed at the bottom) in order to be retained. KDS4444^Talk 14:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

found through WP:INDAFD: title:Jwalantham, director:"Ambarish B M", actors Jwala, "Deepti Kapse", "Deepa Gowda", producers: "Anu Rao", "V. Kumar", & "Rajesh Raikar"

TOO SOON. So temporary delete or userfy. While the project is slated for release in December, and is beginning to get coverage, it does not have quite enough coverage "yet" to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). This will be welcome in a few months, and until then might be mentioned and sourced in related articles, it is currently simply TOO SOON for an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, if creator or editor(s) wish to embark on further Quality improvement. — Cirt (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just to clarify any potential confusion, this AfD applies to Dutch people in France only; the other articles listed have their own AfD going. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch people in France[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: the significance of Dutch emigration to France is not established. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrians in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish people in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedes in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanians in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croats in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeks in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovans in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch people in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish people in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarusians in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russians in France
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainians in France Jbh ^Talk 11:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dutch people (or more precisely: West Flemish or French Flemish) are a prominent minority in the Northern France with a very long history since at least the 9th century. This could be expanded into a worthy article. Alternatively it could be redirected to somewhere, but I am unsure what would be a suitable article. Rest of the articles seem to fail GNG, and they can be deleted. Ceosad (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that would be an article about Flemish people in France, not Dutch people, Ceosad? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: The difference between Flemish people and Dutch people is that the Flemish are Catholic, and the Dutch are Calvinist. Both of them speak Dutch language. Serbo-Croatian language has a similar, but not identical, situation with Muslim Bosniaks, Catholic Croatians and Orthodox Serbians speaking it. Making a difference between a Flemish and a Dutch is more difficult than with a Bosniak and a Croat. See Dutch people#Culture. Ceosad (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not so sure. I've never met a Flemish person who considers themselves Dutch. At the very least, this rationale would require sources that establish that Flemish people in France are commonly labeled as Dutch. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: That is a fair concern. However, I do not have a good source at hand. I just prefer to think this more as an ethnicity, than a nationality, based article. Greeks in France also includes historical immigration that was not related on citizenship, or existence, of modern states. The whole split between Flemish and Dutch kind of stabilized in the 19th century as far as I know. Ceosad (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceosad: Flemish and Dutch history split with the Fall of Antwerp in 1585: that established the borders of the Southern Netherlands and the Republic, which were pretty much reestablished in 1830. The 1815-1830 unification was a result of power politics, not of any shared notion of ethnicity. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have an opinion on the other articles please comment at their AfD. This is not a bundles AfD. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 14:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I thought there might be some scholarly literature on Dutch retirement migration to France, but I've not been able to find it or many other reliable sources, so I'm not satisfied this meets the notability guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was a clear keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Payam ud Din Reshi[edit]

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

Practically unsourced hagiography. Needs a full rewrite to become an acceptable article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite: A rewrite is required. Ayub407^talk 17:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG just from looking at the sources from within the article. Is the subject of numerous books on travel and history. Also meets WP:GEOLAND. Just because an article needs re-writing and substantial work done in order to bring it "up to par", doesn't mean that it should be listed for AfD. If you want to WP:TNT an article, just edit it from the latest revision, re-write it from scratch, and save the re-write. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Template There is no specific reason to add deletion templates on this page. This page is verifiable and true facts listed in it. Thank you--178.152.19.214 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clearly meets WP:NGEO AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its notable, as said above. --Human3015^TALK 23:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious notability. A 480-year-old tomb! Article quality is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Casper Van Dien. MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patient Killer[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a made for TV film which does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Searches only bring up listings and minimal hits for this film, nothing to help with establishing anything towards the inclusion criteria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. The few independent sources are mostly brief mentions in pop culture gossip sites that don't appear to be reliable. The only mentions in arguably reliable sources appear to be confirmation of the director (Fangoria) and 2 paragraphs in Bustle.com. The only semblance of a critical review I've found online is the one already linked in the article (Crushable.com). From what I can tell, Crushable.com is a content farm and gossip site that predominantly snatches tidbits from established news outlets and adds a few snarky comments. See editorial team. The only other "news" mention I've found are the Inquisitr (also not likely a reliable source), which is merely a paragraph synopsis, the date of premier, and the opinion "exciting". Other sources simply confirm the film exists, and that two characters were played by actors who have also appeared in other things([24], [25]). The director states that he won Best Director at the BAFFSF (the Best Actors Film Festival, San Francisco, per his tweet). Winning a non-notable award from a non-notable festival does not impart notability in my opinion. It's possible that this film will one day receive more notice, but for now it is at the very best simply WP:TOOSOON. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect for a while to actor/director Casper Van Dien. Allow a return once requisite coverage is available. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gettys[edit]

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

This individual does not appear to be notable - I have not been able to find any reliable sources discussing him (most sources that mention him focus on the two more notable members of Kinda Funny).

As video producers, every reliable source has been in video form for them over the past decade. The two more notable Kinda Funny members are focused on more because those two are more well known and all four of them started a company forever. If Kanye West, Taylor Swift, Danny Pudi, and Gillian Jacobs were to start a business together theoretically, of course you're going to have more articles focused on West and Swift. That doesn't make Pudi and Jacobs insignificant, it just means West and Swift are more well known.

Currently all that is written for them is about their new business that is barely a year old. They still have years worth of information about their involvement at IGN to be added. Creating these articles takes a lot of time and effort so having these pages fully fleshed out will be a little while. Would have taken less time if it wasn't taken down in the first place. The point is that the information listed is all valid and has been checked directly by the source. Taking it down just causes there to be less information on here. The pages do have to be filled in more but there is nothing inaccurate about them. You google their names and they'll be all that comes up. When someone searches for those names online that's what they want to find, these articles are just another, simpler way of finding more information about them.

Cameronken (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)— Cameronken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This is a walled garden in the making around the new venture Kinda Funny which also seems to have problems (all the references are primary) making it a case for a Db-promo. Far better to include these people in that article perhaps with Redirects.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is the source page of the two pages under consideration and itself does not appear notable. It is a new entity that does not appear to have garnered the coverage to demonstrate notability:

Peter Rehse (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any convincing improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - nothing in the searches meet the in-depth coverage from independent sources needed for to meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedes in France[edit]

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

No indication this subject passes WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 13:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found to corroborate the importance of Swedish immigration to France. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch people in France, and there are more of these stubby articles. Perhaps we should go through the links in Template:Migration to France from Europe and merge a bunch of them into a single table? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I first became aware of these articles when I noticed that they were being created by copying the equivalent articles about migration to the UK, with "France" substituted for "Britain". I raised this at AN/I. It now seems that Ghumen has stopped that behaviour, and is creating them on the basis of a single French government source on the relations between France and other countries. This alone doesn't establish notability. I have also raised a concern with Ghumen about the source of the ancestry figures, and await a response. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No response from Ghumen, who continues to create similar articles based on a single source. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related AfD's

Comment: previous AFD of similar topic by same user under different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandinavian migration to France. Vrac (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Sullivan[edit]

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

I declined a speedy for no content, because things were filled out after that tag. However, I can't decide if this is notable or not, so I'm bringing it here. Peridon (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't see anything separately notable about him in particular, just his team. Gparyani (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now in any case until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is no need to wait for this to run for a week; it qualifies as a snow deletion, as speedy deletion as a repost of an article repeatedly deleted at earlier AfDs, and as speedy deletion as a page created by a sockpuppet account in defiance of blocks. (Incidentally, the comments on the motivation of the nominator may well be valid, especially in view of editing by other recently created accounts, and I shall look into that. However, that has no bearing on the outcome of this deletion discussion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

C.K. Morgan[edit]

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

There's no proof that he is signed to Rca Records and all his references are press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gill Micheal (talk • contribs)

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Odd seeing this AfD as I recall the article being previously deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Wikipedia is not based on weather the person is signed or not and gill Michael who create that tag is not a registered user not even a month it clearly shows it someone who just wants this page deleted I think this article should be kept and protected than you. User:jessicawilson2 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.119.1.2 (talk) — User:jessicawilson2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Repost of CK Morgan? duffbeerforme (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no convincing evidence of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly de Vries-Lammerts[edit]

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

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 10:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think she does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline..--Inception2010 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The first source shouldn't actually be used because it's WP:OR to use a birth record. No need for a standalone article as all useful information about her is in List of Dutch supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Born, had children, died old. WP:NOPAGE EEng (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with my condolences to the family of Ms. de Vries-Lammerts. There is a list article at List of supercentenarians who died in 2015, to which I've added the subject's name (see diff here). It bears noting that this list article shows that several of these supercentenarians have their own articles and the few that I've checked don't seem to have any greater claim to notability than the instant subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Age does not confer notability. Jbh ^Talk 20:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to a relevant list of supercentenarians (perhaps List of Dutch supercentenarians) per WP:ATD. clpo13_(talk) 20:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the oldest anything does not, in and of itself confer automatic notability, which means that we must default to WP:N, and there is no evidence of the type of coverage that would satisfy that guideline. Canadian Paul 22:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Not enough information or included sources to justify a standalone article. However, a mini-bio could be included at List of Dutch supercentenarians. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Rose Mueller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Person who was the second oldest person in the state of Connecticut (not even the US) is not sufficient notability. Further, she was at the time, she was one of the 50 oldest living people but now doesn't hit our top 106 oldest of all time. Both of the sources here are basically obituaries and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all. Does not even come anywhere near meeting WP:GNG. Nothing of encyclopedic interest here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ummm, this seemed to go into much more detail than some other longevity "record-holder" pages, so I went to look at the two references. ~~They're both dead links. I tagged them as such.~~ I think this page presents little that's notable, in the sense that this term is used on Wikipedia, i.e. WP:N. But in case the closer is persuaded that the article should stay, somebody really ought to find some references that are useful. From the titles, I guess the dead links were two obits. But even that's not certain.David in DC (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: A bot replaced the deadlinks with links to archived copies at the Wayback Machine. They help with notability not one whit. David in DC (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, while not helping with the subject's notability, the last line of one of the obits has one of the finest suggestions for people wanting to make a memorial gesture I've ever read: "In lieu of flowers, her grandson suggested mourners give their grandparents "a big hug and tell them that you love them." David in DC (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, don't hug too hard. EEng (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, there's more than usual, but look at what it is: "Her hair was thick and gray, and she didn't need to bother taking prescriptions day after day. She was still sharp and her fingers were still capable of threading needles and doing the needlework she enjoyed passing the time doing. Most of all, she loved to read magazines. According to her family, she spent a lot of her time gently and slowly thumbing through one of the many magazines she kept by her easy chair. When she was not doing that or needlework, she often sat in her chair and looked out through the window at the picturesque wooded backyard." EEng (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's featured article level in prose. It's called context and gives you a full idea of what her life was life. Wouldn't we all be better off if all articles had those kinds of details like that? 166.170.50.162 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if all articles read like children's books? No. EEng (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting the type of coverage that would exceed WP:ROUTINE and satisfy WP:N. Canadian Paul 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. What we have here is a case of pseudo-biography, per WP:PSEUDO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo de Sadeleer[edit]

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

Has not competed at a high enough level to be automatically notable, nor won any significant junior championships and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. QueenCake (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given this fellow's age, we might have a 'too soon' situation here. We can always revisit having a page later. Right now, notability isn't really established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of the above. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hip fracture. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures[edit]

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

An individual scientific study that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later as although this would be an interesting subject and fit for a journal of this field, I see no obvious improvement and the best my searches found was this. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advertisement and study of run-of-the-mill studies belongs on news sites and analyses, not an encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 00:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge appropriate content to Hip fracture, including merging article history. Then delete the redirect. The study itself has yet to achieve notability, and appears to be in process. I agree it also runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. The section 3 "A Health Services Research agenda for hip fracture care", where all the citations are, is about hip fractures, not about the study. It looks possible that this is a promo piece for Boris Sobolev and the study. Fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage, also WP:TOOSOON. Note: This article was created on 12 May 2015‎ by editor Publichealthnerd. Publichealthnerd also created the Boris Sobolev article on 27 April 2015. --Bejnar (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate content to hip fracture with this article itself deleted, for the reasons stated above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moved back to Draft:Robert F. Brese Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Brese[edit]

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

Promotional type article, I don't believe that the post that he held at DOE was notable enough to make him notable - he was just a civil servant doing a job. Some news coverage but not sure if this is in depth enough to meet GNG Gbawden (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - his most recent job at DOE appears to be notable, but the others were stepping stones. This article needs a lot of work if it's to be kept: it's borderline too messy to fix but I'll take a crack at trimming the cruft out. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up what I could. I'm not sure the infobox belongs on the bottom. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe return to draftspace as my News, Books and browser searches found links including ones saying he was "the department's top cybersecurity official" but there's simply no move target and no better improvement. Notifying AfC users Inomyabcs (who accepted the article) and Onel5969 (always enjoyable working with you ). SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These are some of the most difficult articles to evaluate. Simply because of the position and the 24 hour news cycle's need for filler, folks like this get mentioned. But all the material in the article, as well as what I can find in the search engines is simply routine. In my opinion, it doesn't rise to the level of "comprehensive coverage" necessary to meet WP:GNG. (and right back at you, SwisterTwister ). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: Lots of mentions (as said above, news organizations tend to be indiscriminate; they are for-profit and more information = more ad revenue), but no significant coverage. The subject's role could cause news and other sources to seriously cover the subject, so userfication (trusted editor) seems like the better option. Esquivalience ^t 00:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to userfication to draft space. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chesham#Neighbourhoods and wards. I held off redirecting this yesterday in the hope more !votes would come but to be totally honest I didint think anymore would/will so wrapping it up now. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chesham Vale[edit]

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

Reads like a tourist pamphlet. Has no significant features. Devoid of references, in spite of the banner template dated November 2007. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chesham#Neighbourhoods and wards likely as is usual with geography articles for which no better improvement can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fola Daniel Adelesi[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR perhaps WP:TOOSOON. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish his notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I haven't began to look at this closely but it's imaginable there's not much yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyshot[edit]

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

NN local band failing all 12 elements of WP:BAND and GNG. The only viable sources are all from one writer in a local Victoria paper, the Times Colonist. The Dissident Aggressor 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another band article for which there are no signs of better sourcing (my searches found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mike Huckabee#Weight loss and health advocacy. Sandstein 20:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I remember when this came out, so I'm surprised at the lack of coverage I'm finding. Most of what I'm seeing are things that comment on the humor of him writing this, then following it up years later with “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy.” None of it is in-depth criticism, mostly just poking fun at the difference in the titles. I'll keep digging. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mike_Huckabee#Weight_loss_and_health_advocacy. I'm actually surprised that there's no in-depth coverage of this book. There are plenty of name drops of the book, but nothing that actually specifically talks about the book, as the coverage seems to be almost entirely about his political career and his weight loss advocacy in general. This section in his article covers the book to a degree, so I think that a redirect would be best in this case. No harm in leaving the history intact in case someone does manage to dig anything up, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - Huckabee's writings have garnered some attention (positive and negative) in the past month, so this might be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem though, is that this book is only mentioned in passing. We need more than "Huckabee wrote X" or a brief mention in relation to his weight loss or advocacy in general. There weren't even any reviews out there that I could find, and I don't know that his writings as a whole gaining new notice is really something that would give notability in and of itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for Tokyogirl79. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Kapur[edit]

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

Business biography that fails WP:GNG, sourced only to a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview in Men's Health. Other WP:PRIMARY sources are the subject's own website and a database entry, and a Tumblr blog asserting that he was pictured on the cover of Men's Health. With only one borderline-secondary sources, article fails GNG. McGeddon (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAA Hi, I am new to wikipidea. However, Men's Health is an international known and very popular magazine. This was a cover story speaking of Kapur's accomplishments. I have added multiple sources - non-primary and primary. Just because one user "McGeddon" feels it to be not noteworthy I do not think it is right for him to continuously post it for deletion. If he finds the much-celebrated business and media personality to be not worthy of being noteworthy - its a personal opinion not stating that there are inadequate sources and non-noteworthy. I would request the user McGeddon and the administrators to look into the matter and to use any search engine to know more about the achievements of the pages I have helped to create for Wikipidea.— Crepod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Kapur's company website is not independent of the subject, and a database entry confirming that his company exists is a "trivial mention" and not significant in the terms of WP:GNG. Even if the Men's Health article were regarded as a reliable source, it is only one source, where GNG needs multiple sources.

This article won't be deleted because one user doesn't think the article meets these criteria - there will be a discussion. You should add to it if you can. To clarify, I did look on Google for more information about Kapur, but could only find the Men's Health magazine article, and various copies of his Instagram and LinkedIn profiles. I could not find any serious press coverage. --McGeddon (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAA WP:ABUSE WP:AbRep The articles on Viraj Kapur share "Significant coverage" which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Men’s Health, Seventeen India Magazine, Architectural Digest, any other articles are "Reliable" sources that have editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. These Sources encompass published works in all forms and media. "Sources” are secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Since there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected which have been provided.— Crepod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:19, 29 September 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no better signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would make the assumption that the coverage men's Health etc. is promotional. I don't think any magazine is really free from that, and we need to judge the content by our own common sense. There is no way that the Mens Health article is in any way other than very poorly disguised PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Ingram[edit]

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

~~One event popularity~~ NewMutants (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been indefinitely blocked as sock of User:Undertrialryryr. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from the nominator above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the nominator's banning as a sock puppet, I actually do agree with their assessment — this is effectively a WP:BLP1E of a person who isn't the subject of any sustained or encyclopedic interest outside the context of that 1E. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, which is probably the same rationale for keeping Mary Kay Letourneau. Major SamSamSam (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-story, really. It was a professional matter that was dealt with appropriately. Wikipedia shouldn't deal with personal relationships like a tabloid (WP:NOTTABLOID). It's not an area of academic interest. It's also clearly a lot different from the Mary Kay Letourneau case. Claudebone (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, good sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me this is an obvious keep, because there are more than 3 various references. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan "Two Dogs" Hampton[edit]

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

Article borders on an advertisement. He fails WP:SOLDIER and I believe he also fails WP:AUTHOR. The Time article is a vanity interview after the release of his book. Not exactly a RS Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article is obviously a stub in progress by a new editor. We should help new editors out, not rush to delete. I've already made a few fixes. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references in reliable sources available online, in addition to the ones already listed. Examples here and here and here: ABF99 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ABF99, Thanks for your help in linking a couple of articles that could be used for further discussion on this page. I'm a new editor, so I am still getting used to formatting and structuring through Wikipedia. Appreciate your help!Ethanze (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)--Ethanze (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have participated in enough important events. Books help put him over the line. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 medical literature. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical manual[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to medical literature. The target article is, regrettably, very poor. But I believe it is much more defensible as a topic than this, where arguments about what constitutes a "manual" (versus an article, a treatise, or a book of some other form or description) are likely to stymie further development. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to medical textbook or medical literature. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Gigs[edit]

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

An indiscriminate collection of information. No reliable sources, lots of original research, some of the facts made me think "how do you know that"? This might be great for people who think Trespass is the greatest album ever recorded, but I don't think this is a suitable article for the casual encyclopedia reader. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and SwisterTwister. The commonality of the title makes research difficult, but I can find no reliable sources to back up using this specific nomenclature with reference to Genesis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InfoTM[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. In addition to the source in the article, I found [26] and [27] but both are press releases. I can't find any non-passing mentions of the company. shoy (reactions) 14:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not obvious, the point of having this article is its ARM SoCs that were referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia, as done for other smaller Chinese SoC companies like Nufront. So, objection to deletion. I don't really care if the article is called InfoTM (the brand) or gets renamed to cover only their iMAPx product series - those are in fact being mentioned beyond press releases, e.g., [28]. The only other Wikipedia page referencing the company itself was Arteris. --Andreasfa (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A forum is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. shoy (reactions) 17:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not using a forum as a source for the article! I am rather pointing out that InfoTM's iMAPx SoCs are notable because - contrary to your claim of there being only press releases about the company - there are non-Chinese users of devices with those chips, as proven by Web hits that you conveniently ignore... There's YouTube videos of such tablets, Wikis and what not. Is that so hard to understand? The forum link I mentioned is about a Spanish (i.e., non-Chinese) netbook, and these days it's even easy to buy Chinese tablets right off AliExpress. Note that I am in no way affiliated with that company, so please be constructive and propose changes rather than calling for deletion of information useful to technical people like me: I saw that the Cortex-A template listed the chips but did not have a Wikipedia link for them, so I created a page with more info, copying the structure from other existing Wikipedia pages linked there. If you prefer that info to be presented differently, make a suggestion. --Andreasfa (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that these products don't exist. Wikipedia's concept of notability may be different that your personal definition, so I would advise you to check our notability guideline to see exactly what is required for an article. YouTube videos and wikis are also user-generated content, so they are not reliable sources either. If you can find, for example, a tech news website that has covered these chips extensively, or an electronics magazine, those would be the kind of reliable sources that this article would need. shoy (reactions) 19:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless better Chinese sources can be found. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Invensys. MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InduSoft[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. A quick google search reveals that most of the little coverage this company has got is for its products.. And article reads like a promotion. Think this should be deleted. Regards —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although News, Books, browser and Highbeam all found links, there's nothing to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to parent company Invensys or Schneider Electric. Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references apart from a routine announcement of the acquisition. A search turned up more coverage of the acquisition in automation world and press releases related to their 'InduSoft Web Studio' product, but no significant coverage not about the acquisition. Parent companies are notable so a redirect is reasonable. Dialectric (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ganxsta Love[edit]

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

Don't believe that this musician is notable. Has collaborated on mixtapes but don't believe that nor his one album meets the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks WP:RS Gbawden (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now lets go head and do a check I think you need to review me your self I don't care what you think ask everyone I worked with yes it was a mistake I fixed and I added links even added my contact information so you can find out your self and quick question it will make a lot of sense to keep the page up when you see what im doing and by the way if these anything u need ask don't flag my page by saying what u think goooooogle me....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloveactive (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if necessary as there's not much to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no in-depth coverage in reliable sources (via Google search). Possible achievements can't be sourced with personal knowledge, but must have been covered by independent media. Please also see Wikipedia's guidelines about "conflict of interest" editing, autobiographies and external link usage. GermanJoe (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Nanney[edit]

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

not my field, but the references look� either thoroughly unreliable or irrelevant to notability DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to not meet WP:NPERSON. --Rubbish computer 22:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim: While many of the sources are unreliable, like Reddit and SmashBoards, Daily Dot and Polygon are reliable sources, so no need to delete completely. In addition, I found a source from Bleacher Report ([29]), which is also reliable. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Evil_Geniuses#Super_Smash_Bros._Melee (or Apex (tournament series)), for which he is most notable. The current article has a slew of unreliable sources and there isn't much more in-depth in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The Polygon and Daily Dot articles only mention him in passing (not significant coverage), so it would be undue weight to give him his own article (and fill it with unreliable sources). czar 16:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe this nomination is a mistake. I the first note, yes there are unreliable sources, but there are also sources which are reliable Red Bull, Nintendo Enthuiast, Red Bull. Next we should look at this player's acomplishment, he is a three time EVO top 8 finisher. This is the largest fighting game tournament in the world sponsored by Nintendo, Microsoft, and Red Bull so for all purposes he is a professional. He also is the two time champion of Apex the main smash tournament in the world. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Enthusiast is not a reliable source. And we judge whether eSports individuals receive their own articles by the subject's depth of coverage in reliable, secondary sources (e.g., WP:VG/RS). We'll need to see more of that to justify keeping the article, else there will be no sources with which to write. If they're important, there should be plenty of source material. czar 02:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Enthusiast may not be included on the reliable video game sources list, but it's not included on the unreliable sources list either. In general it seems like the WP:VG/RS does not seem to accommodate esports/competitive gaming very well for whatever reason.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be on the list—it's a patently unreliable blog with no hallmarks of editorial quality. I would have thought that you've been around long enough to see that (and I don't see how you could argue otherwise...) VG/RS has no issues with eSports/competitive gaming—niche blogs by passionate users do not pass for reliable sources on WP whether or not they pass through the VGRS talk page. czar 04:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many mentions even using the reliable video game sources list custom search (search for "ppmd" instead of Kevin Nanney"). Also well documented on sources not on the list but still reliable.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User was canvassed. Passing mentions (plain hits) are not the same as in-depth coverage. czar 04:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's going on here but I definitely wasn't canvassed into the discussion. I've been a regular contributor to this article but I was just a bit tired of dealing with AFDs so so I held off until Valoem asked me to comment.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet sst ✈ 08:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 08:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Czar (talk · contribs) This directly falls under a non-canvassed RfC per:

The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion, and is a limited posting with transparency. As noted Kevin Nanney has significant coverage in this reliable source Red Bull and Daily Dot, and Indy Week. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count de Salis-Soglio[edit]

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

This reads like a combination of unsourced genealogy, original research, and, I don't know, aristo-cruft?

This title of nobility was in fact created by the Holy Roman Emperor, but it seems to have existed only on paper, as a courtesy, and to have had no political or other significance or effect. Peter von Salis (another awful article) was indeed created Count in 1748, but he was Swiss (i.e., not a subject of the Emperor) and the authoritative Historical Dictionary of Switzerland in his biography mentions this title only in passing and about his son not at all, nor does the article about the house of Salis. This indicates that this title had very little significance to Peter von Salis or his heirs, or to the world at large, and an article about it lacks the required notability for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources.

What would be notable is the Swiss noble house of Salis itself (de:Salis (Adelsgeschlecht)), and its members, which include some of the more prominent Swiss political and military leaders of the 18th and 19th century – but for their major influence on Swiss and minor influence on European history, not for their association with an essentially immaterial Austrian title of nobility. Incidentally, the German WP and the HDS article indicate that collecting foreign titles of nobility was something of a hobby of the Salis family, as they (or some of them) were also German Imperial Reichsfreiherrn, French counts, and Jonkheers and barons of the Netherlands, perhaps on account of their military and mercenary careers with various European powers. I haven't even tried to check whether somebody tried to create articles for all of these titles too... Sandstein 18:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Updated after the comment by Rodolph below.[reply]

Most European titles have no political or other significance or effect.Rodolph (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it is a matter of taste as to whether you like aristocrats or not. English, Great British and UK peerages have pages for the titles concerned, so too this family, which was unusual in that it had a Royal Licence to use the title officially in the UK.Rodolph (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent to nobility as such, but even titles of nobility must conform to our WP:GNG guideline, which says: no significant coverage in reliable sources – no article. I agree that we should cover the family of Salis, which is very notable, but not this particular foreign (courtesy?) title of theirs. It can be mentioned briefly in an article about them. Sandstein 19:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is no more a courtesy title than is the Dukedom of Devonshire one. It is a real thing. It is no less notable than many. I don't see why pulling things down helps? What does 'no significant coverage in reliable sources – no article' mean? Rodolph (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example of such a page: Duke of Devonshire.Rodolph (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What notability means is that we have a guideline at WP:N that tells us what kind of sources are required for something to have an article, including noble titles. Such sources are not present here. Just because we have articles about other titles does not mean that we must have articles about all, see WP:WAX. Sandstein 19:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll endeavor now to justify the article.Rodolph (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is covered in both Burke's & Debrett's Peerage. That's enough to ring the notability bell. Beyond which, while it's by no means carved in stone, there has been a strong tendency in AfD to give a degree of presumptive notability to aristocratic families. One of the problems with some of the older ones is that sources can be difficult to come by for a lot of information. You deal with what's available. A lot of the sources cited are eminently reliable. They are unfortunately also somewhat obscure,very old, and as noted in the related AfD often in private collections. None of which means they are unreliable or inadequate as sources for the purposes of satisfying GNG and or BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd go along with a keep, but only if somebody edits out the trivia and cruft, of which there's so much it might have to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do generally have articles about titles. We certainly have articles about all or most peerages granted in the United Kingdom. And this is a rarity in that it's a foreign title which was explicitly permitted by the Crown to be used by a British subject. I think it's sufficiently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A small point but above Sandstein mentions about his son that links to not his son but some cousin. Meanwhile, here again is a link to Peter de Salis, who was created count in 1748. (If the Swiss dictionary of historical biography is a bit dismissive of the Salis it might be because their section was written by a member of their rival clan, a Planta. The Swiss biographical dictionary does'nt mention the comital elevation, perhaps because being Swiss it has a healthy scepticism to such things, reflected in what was said at the time by jealous cousins of the new count, that the enoblement would create: «magior superbia, ostentazione e spese per la Casa», "greater haughtiness, ostentation and expenses for the House").Rodolph (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By 1930/32 there were only 13 British families with hereditary Royal Licences and Authority to use foreign titles in the UK, (see: 547,423/5, 21/7/30, HM The King (Private Secretary) gives HM's views on H.O. suggestions on Royal Licenses for the use of Foreign Titles, to Sir M Delevingne). Most if not all of those with Royal Licences tended to get listed in the peerages (Burke's/Debrett's/etc) in their own short section.Rodolph (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to put in the research time, I don't see why this article couldn't with some cleanup be part of a more general article headed Foreign titles granted royal license in the UK or equivalent. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid idea, especially as François R. Velde of Heraldica has done all the work, compiling and listing from Home Office sources.Rodolph (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and eventually move to "House of Salis-Soglio" or simply "Salis-Soglio" (see Talk:Count de Salis-Seewis for an explanation of a similar ex-AfD article). - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the KEEP. But to move to House of Salis-Soglio would be wrong as the houses of Salis-Soglio are a much larger issue. This is a page that is supposed to deal with just the Counts de Salis-Soglio.Rodolph (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to for example the House of Habsburg, the House of Salis-Soglio is tiny, yet the house of Habsburg can manage to have everything on one page. Anyways, the correct noble title would be "Count of the Holy Roman Empire", as is described on the article page. There are hundreds of those however, considering that it is a courtesy title. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Salis-Soglio is separate from the Counts De Salis-Soglio. The Counts de Salis is treated like UK peerage, as it had an unusual Royal Licence for use in the UK. It is not a courtesy title. The nine counts de Salis-Soglio are part of the Salis-Soglio, but are a small a definite separate entity.Rodolph (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dutch supercentenarians. MBisanz ^talk 17:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egbertje Leutscher-de Vries[edit]

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

Simply being the oldest person in the Netherlands is not sufficient for notability under WP:GNG. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lady is notable solely for longevity, something that is to become increasingly common, we are told. The article has no place here. Nor do any similar articles. People have to be notable for something other than living longer than other folk. Fiddle Faddle 10:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is notable that she was the oldest in Netherlands for around two years. she was lived 111 years and 296 days, making it the 4th oldest person ever in Netherlands and one of oldest people in the world validated by Gerontology Research Group, an organization that tracks the ages of supercentenarians.--Inception2010 (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the WP:GNG that states "having your age verified by the GRG makes you notable". If you remove the trivia and statements sourced to birth and marriage records you're left with nothing that isn't already available in List of Dutch supercentenarians CommanderLinx (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG There's nothing notable here. She surely belongs on the Gerontology Research Group's list of supercentenarians. Assuming her age has been "validated" to that organization's exacting standards. But Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service for thie GRG. To appear in this encyclopedia, it's necessary for subject to be notable as that term is defined here, meaning it must be covered in multiple independent WP:Reliable sources. Reviewing what small bit of references appear on the page reveals very little in the way of notability, as that term is defined on Wikipedia. The two refs to Iedereen heeft een geschiedenis are useless. It's a primary source. Using it would be prohibited original research What's left is a two-line obit from de Telegraf. Really? C'mon. David in DC (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of Dutch supercentenarians. Clearly fails WP:GNG. If you remove the unsourced statements, trivia, and sentences that are sourced to birth and marriage records you're left with just a name, age and country. This is all available in the Dutch supers article so there's no need for a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usual nonsense. EEng (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability other than living long, and the guidelines at WP:WOP tell us that that isn't enough. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semitic Germanic Heritage[edit]

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

Exactly one G-hit for this concept: this article, which is pretty fast work for Google's search engines. Unsourced and the creation of indef blocked SPA Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation. Fails WP:SYNTH, to the degree that any conclusion beyond this concept's existence is made. Ravenswing 08:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NOT TRUE and it is definitely not WP:SYNTH i have created it in few hour and i am working on it i just need time including for the sources.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (جرمن قوم کے مقدس اسلامی ریاست) 08:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC) please respond here not in the Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation also known as ISGN--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (جرمن قوم کے مقدس اسلامی ریاست) 08:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You do have time to come up with reliable sources discussing this concept in "significant detail." AfDs are open for seven days. Ravenswing 08:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found to suggest that this subject can be verified let alone be notable. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Much of the text is copied from this site, ("user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required"), which is not a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research/synthesis. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR/FRINGE/non-notable subject. Sjö (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research / synthesis. -- The Anome (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fringe idea which has failed to gain any support among scholars. There may just about be a case for including a brief passing mention of the theory in some article such as Germanic philology, but there is no basis for a free-standing article on the subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as Semitic and Germanic have a lot of common including language religion and population i think it shows the historical and modern Fusion and relation between them.--206.125.61.133 (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wow an Enjoyable topic!--Shqipërisëtonluk (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: though it is short it has some revalue and assessment i think it should be expanded or rewrite

Keep as it is a notable subject--206.125.61.2 (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After discounting the two last IP comments because they do seem to make no sense, we have consensus that this is just a content fork. Sandstein 20:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Russian air raids in Syria[edit]

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

One of a proliferating number of content forks on Russia's current military intervention in Syria. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Yep. We have plenty of this, and it does nothing but invite us to violate WP:NOTNEWS on a daily basis. Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed on the day of the nomination as "delete", but this is overturned and the deletion is relisted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 5. Sandstein 07:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable, for example see Syria airstrikes: Russian military reports 64 raids on Isis in 24 hours for fresh coverage. Consideration of how this aspect should mesh with other related articles about the wider conflict is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Fresh coverage" is precisely the reason we should not have these overly specific content forks. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not a duplicate article. It is a subtopic (airstrikes) in a broader topic (intervention). Not a fork, about airstrikes only. WP:SIZE for main aricle. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. As noted by other editors, it is a content fork designed to provide a blow by blow daily account. Any relevant information is not currently impinging on WP:SIZE. This is content for Timeline of the Syrian Civil War, not a separate article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War as a content fork. I suggest do not delete in order to keep edit history and facilitate merging. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be much unique content here, so I agree that a merge would be simple and effective. My additions to the discussion are that:

After the merge, the page be retained, converted to a redirect, and checked for no double redirects;
The page into which My very best wishes suggests it be merged, itself should be merged. There shouldn't be two separate pages : Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War and Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War.
Pretty please, stop the page-spawning.
I would like to see admin action to establish / enforce some structure on these pages, and their legitimate sub-pages, to reduce good-faith duplication.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Timeline of the Russian intervention in Syria, similar to Timeline of the American-led intervention in Syria. 178.95.188.79 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — 178.95.188.79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That makes zero sense. This article isn't a timeline of anything. It's a small single-topic WP:CONTENTFORK. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page is redundant. Nezi1111 (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the need for this page since it overlaps with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War TH1980 (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page, and Wikipedia as a whole, should not be a target for Russian political warfare. 67.7.244.9 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — 67.7.244.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

hm... sockpuppeting much?Nezi1111 (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant with Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War Rhoark (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 Unambiguous copyright infringement. Deleted by User:CorbieVreccan. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuruvachalil kalari[edit]

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

Article contains no references at all. Appears to be an extended promotional piece. Would nominate for speedy deletion but...? Have a look. KDS4444^Talk 06:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a total copyvio of this blogspot blog. The entry containing it is here. All the search results appear to be posted by the same person (judged by the name and/or photo when available). ghytred talk 13:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dowling[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. The citations provided include one that covers the 1912 golf open and another that is an obituary (routine coverage). The article needs evidence of multiple reliable independent non-trivial sources to be retained. KDS4444^Talk 06:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am just getting started with this article. Much more can be said about Dowling. He was a PGA Tour golfer and finished 7th in the U.S. Open and as such his inclusion on Wikipedia is acceptable under the terms of Wikiproject: Golf. Consult with master golf editor Tewapack and he will confirm that I am correct. The editor Nigej can also confirm that this article is allowed. Oftentimes I start stub articles like this and then over time they grow exponentially. In good time, as I have the spare time to work on it, this will end up being a fantastic article, trust me. Thanks so much for your kind and careful consideration in this matter.--♥Golf (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 100% clear from WP:NGOLF that he is notable: "5. They have made the cut in one of the major tournaments: Men: Masters Tournament, U.S. Open, The Open Championship, PGA Championship" Top 10 finish in one of them makes him even more notable. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I concur 100% with Nigej's analysis. --♥Golf (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NGOLF, so too early to delete on GNG grounds. Tewapack (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Vyom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. Probable vanity article placed by undisclosed paid editor, now indeffed. No independent sources at all -- the four "sources" listed here are simply the titles/publishers of his own books (two of which are children's books). Brianhe (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was looking to bring this here myself. MOst of the refs that were brought in last time were COI spam stuff, self-published and PR work; this is in keeping with the standard practice of this editor's COI editing. I looked elsewhere during my clean up and there really wasn't anything in terms of significant RS coverage in English or Hindi. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Perron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

My searches simply found nothing good at all aside from some modelling links and the first of two links listed at the external links section is now closed (company seems to have closed as it is) thus there's simply nothing to suggest keeping. Pinging past users Mbinebri, Seraphimblade, Paul Erik, Eeekster and Bejnar. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, there is nothing much. In Google books one passing mention in New York Fashion Week, three Wikipedia copies, and four books that don't mention her at all. As far as real news goes, Vanessa Perron, the assistant restaurant manager, seems to get as much. Aside from the cited 2003 article in The San Diego Union-Tribune, I found only one substantive piece and that was a short piece a 2003 magazine. Sardone, Antonia; Zis, Norah (13 August 2003). "The New Kids on the Block". Women's Wear Daily (WWD). ((cite magazine)): Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) Fails WP:BLPNOTE. --Bejnar (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. I don't see that any more referencing is available now than when the article was previously deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elroy Amalathas[edit]

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

My searches easily found nothing to suggest better here and this article would certainly need it as it has not changed since simply starting having primary and social links in August. Whether intentional or not, this has looked more like a personal page (simply look at the history) since the start and Notifying author ((|U|Arunthathi)) and past users Wgolf and Bgwhite. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arunthathi Do ping as one above didn't work. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to support notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jovago[edit]

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

Utterly impossible to find reliable, independent sourcing on this thing. Web searches are useless with density of corp self-promotion ("Jovago Tips: 5 signs you need a vacation" and variants). Tried HighBeam and found 14 news stories from 2013, 2014 and 2015. Each incredibly weak routine business actions, co-marketing and promotions and/or sourced to press releases: "JOVAGO Announces Expansion Plans into SUDAN", "Jovago.com Teams Up with Mobilink and Oracle", "Jovago.com Launching Special Discount Packages", "Jovago.com Initiates Hotel Awards to Promote Tourism", etc. Brianhe (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional contents lacking inline citations. --OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 20:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches mirrored Brianhe's above. Not enough in-depth coverage to show it meets notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Public image of Narendra Modi. Consensus, though slim, was to redirect, and Public image of Narendra Modi seemed the better target. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Bharat Shrestha Bharat[edit]

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

There appears to be no influence of this slogan. furthermore it did not gain any notable mention in the media etc. therefore it is not an encyclopedia worthy topic. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Public image of Narendra Modi because List of slogans by Narendra Modi is likely to be merged in same article. This slogan is not notable enough to have separate article. --Human3015^TALK 05:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of slogans by Narendra Modi as content is not enough to qualify for a separate article -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 05:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public image of Narendra Modi for failing WP:GNG where one line about it can be written. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Narendra Modi[edit]

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

Is there any reason to keep an article on the public image of Modi when his own article deals with it in depth? Furthermore the article has a lot of problems with puffery and POV(which will continue as long as it exist). I propose deleting this article as most of the information here has already been given in the article about Modi. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Article is well referenced and covered by mainstream news. Moreover currently another AfD is going on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slogans by Narendra Modi to delete List of slogans by Narendra Modi and current consensus is to merge List of slogans by Narendra Modi to this article. So there is no issue of deleting this article. --Human3015^TALK 04:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no concern about the sourcing of the article. The concern is that this information is already present in the modi article and therefore it is not required in a separate article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well referenced. Besides that, it would not be possible to cover everything (notable) related to his image in Narendra Modi. That would make it too long. Since he creates a new shade of his image too often (positive + negative), its better to keep it as a separate article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 05:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article when there was consensus that this content was WP:UNDUE for inclusion in the Narendra Modi article. See that discussion at Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_13#Fashion. I think that it is apparent that there is a lot of content here which is not in the Narendra Modi article and which people say does not belong in that article. When a section in an article gets too long, it gets WP:FORK'ed into a new article.

I do not see puffery or POV content here, especially in the fashion section which I started. I would like to hear more about what anyone else sees that is a problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most importantly Modi is a global leader and leader of World's largest democracy and known for his fashion and use of social media which makes his public image. This article is not "un-encyclopedic" there are such kind of articles on some world leaders like Public image of Barack Obama, Public image of Vladimir Putin. So I see nothing wrong in Public image of Narendra Modi. But there are many haters of Modi so such people may not tolerate such article as per WP:IDLI but we need to be neutral while assessing the article. We don't have to act as "Modi hater" or as "Modi fan". --Human3015^TALK 02:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid WP:CFORK. Remove the repetitive undue content from main article and keep only summary on it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Duterte presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

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

Seeing this politician is no longer running (with finality) for the presidency in the upcoming Philippine presidential election, 2016, I see no reason to keep this article.--RioHondo (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is still time left to file the Certificate of Candidacy and considering that his political adviser confirmed that he will run. He also told the reporters to wait until October 15 (the day before the deadline) for his final decision. On his 2013 mayoral campaign, he also filed his COC on the due date and several campaign advertisments aired on the television. We must keep this article until his final decision that is not that far. -–Angelo 6397 ^{T A L K!} 05:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Read final statement from Duterte from yesterday: Duterte won't run for president: 'The country does not need me'. We can use some of the info from this article for merging with his bio article though.--RioHondo (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as isn't going to happen. Deserves a line in the main Philippine presidential election, 2016 article though. This is exactly why people shouldn't start articles on presidential campaigns until their candidature is confirmed. Number 5 7 09:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he doesn't indeed file for candidacy by the deadline. (This AfD will probably reach beyond that date) Any extra material can be merged to Rodrigo Duterte#2016 Presidential elections and Philippine presidential election, 2016.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can delete this now. Duterte definitely not running for president.--RioHondo (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not going to happen for now, just as in case with the failed notable presidential campaigns like Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012, Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012, Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012 and Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012. But has no deserve to run again. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the above US pres'l candidates though, this Filipino politician has never announced his intention to run as president, has never hit the campaign trail, and whose candidacy is all speculations from media and netizens. Pres'l candidacies in the Philippines are different from US ones where the campaign period only begins after the filing of certificate of candidacy which this politician didn't.--RioHondo (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close, CU confirmed sock from a paid editing group. Articles deleted G5. —SpacemanSpiff 04:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Sharma Activist[edit]

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

The subject started an online campaign to extend pub and bar hours in Delhi and participated in a candle light vigil for that purpose. This was picked up by Indo-Asian News Service which operates locally and specializes in web based PR and news circulation. This was republished in the online editions of Times of India and Business Standard (online editions unlike the print editions push out PR wire content as is and regularly), the final claim about Deutsche Welle interviewing the subject isn't in the ref and I couldn't find something about it either. At best this is a WP:BLP1E case. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A BLP1E could also be left as a redirect but I see no suitable target here. Strangely we don't have anything at Delhi culture and his name in that huge future article would anyways be undue. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Khatri[edit]

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

Page has been deprodded by the creator before-anyway actor with questionable notability whose only refs go to youtube. Wgolf (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this one also seems obvious and we can wait for better. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry in the early 21st century[edit]

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

I don't like nominating poetry articles for deletion, but this has to go. It has history--in short, it was created as a copy-paste job from a ton of Wikipedia articles, deleted, then resurrected after proper attribution (I assume it was proper, I haven't checked) of the sections.

But this is not a good or even acceptable article. "Poetry in the early 21st century" isn't a happening subject to begin with, and this particular article is really just an essentially POV essay. The creator appears heavily influenced by one particular critic (Harold Bloom), and clearly has their favorite poets.

Its POV-essay quality is clear already from the title and the first sentence. The title should really say "English-language poetry", since the rest need not apply, with the odd exception of Paz. Someone should have stuck a "globalize" tag on it already. Its opening sentence, "The end of the twentieth century was marked by the death of three leading poets when James Dickey (1923-1997), Octavio Paz (1914-1998) and Gwendolyn Brooks (1917-2000) died within four years of each other", presents us with a rather arbitrary list of three dead poets who have little in common but their job and their date of death. That an admittedly subjective list follows is not a surprise, but what I think puts the nail in the coffin is the claim that "this list...presents a representative sample". At the very least an article like this should base itself on some impeccable sources that actually do this sort of selective and comparative work (since in a way we're anthologizing), but the sources are, well, newspaper work, certainly not up to par for an article like that, and never general enough for the breadth of this topic which, in the end, is just a selection of copies from various Wikipedia articles, thrown together based on someone's likes and dislikes. I mean, I'm happy to see someone include the perennially underrated Geoffrey Hill, whose Mercian Hymns y'all should really read, but this list is just arbitrary. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drmies. Indeed it lacks a worldly view, but as I said in the AN thread, this is if anything better off as a WP:BOOK; that's all it appears to be: a collection of other articles, word for word. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drmies. The attribution problems seem to be the least of this article's many problems. Every sentence is contentious. For me the problem is not simply the appalling bias but also the tone: it reads like old textbooks that presented poetry not as poetry but as a club of unsmiling people, all of whom knew each other and published each other and created "schools." The article is not about "poetry" but about poets and not representative poets either. I see no value in it....Poetic1920 (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree that this article needs a lot of work, but surely there is something salvageable in here. For example, the portion about "Literary poetic advancement in the 21st century" is substantiated by inline citations to a reliable source (albeit from a single source). There are already articles for events in poetry for specific years (see list of years in poetry) and there are some extant "this century in poetry" articles (see, e.g., 4th century in poetry). Furthermore, "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" (see WP:ATD). Renaming may be warranted here, and certainly the article needs to present a worldly view, but I'm just saying that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the WP:BATHWATER. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the existence of 2012 in poetry, 2013 in poetry, 2014 in poetry, etc. it makes sense to have an overview article for the entire century. This probably isn't it, but neither is 21st century in poetry, which is currently just a list of years. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I endorsed deleting the poetry in the early 20th century page and other pages that show a deliberate disregard for Black poets, female poets that were out of the mainstream, and radical poets. This page seems to have the same prejudices. The comment above is interesting: but the poetry pages like 2012 in poetry (which I did not know) are about poetry. This page is about who is a poet and who gets to decide (except it's not about that either). This conversation here is smarter than the page itself. *JRW03 (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like to see is the article reduced to this section - Poetry_in_the_early_21st_century#Chronology_of_the_21st_century_in_poetry - and expanded from there. I'd also suggest that it be merged with 21st century in poetry, and probably moved there, as that is the better title. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've been bold and moved the chronology over to 21st century in poetry - now I'd agree that Poetry_in_the_early_21st_century should be deleted. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Shafley[edit]

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

I came across this via the BLP noticeboard, but I can't really see where Shafley has received any true coverage for his work. The article asserts that he's shown his art in various locations, but I can't determine if these would be enough for him to pass notability guidelines for artists.

A look at the reference section brings up nothing since he appears to not be listed in any of those sites. I tried performing a search for him and other than some mention of him in regards to taking nude photographs of his students around 2001, there really isn't anything out there for him. He was never officially brought to court or arrested for the charges, so they remain allegations and not something we should have in an article.

So... if anyone can find coverage of him and his work for something that would assert firm notability I'm open to withdrawing this. I just can't really find anything for him to show that he'd merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Makes it into Getty Images [30] (no charges made, the fact he took the nude photos and molds of students is not contested) and is a listed artist in the Dictionary of Canadian Artists [31]. [32] shows he got a few mentions at the time it became public. Collect (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would call that entry in the Canadian Heritage Information Network a genuine "notability error". I'm surprised, as usually this is a good source for aritst info. It cites a number of small newspaper articles for minor shows in the middle of nowhere, and mentions what is essentially art practice as a hobby: "Some of his projects in this medium are his life-size sculptures of young women ready to go swimming to be placed on the site of his and his wife's new home on the North Channel shore at Blind River facing Lake Huron." I have real doubts about the notability of his practice...New Media Theorist (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note The school incident seems sufficient otherwise (lots of Toronto Star coverage, and in other Canadian publications concerning such acts in schools for making nude molds of female students, and nude photos of female students) - we do usually allow artists who are listed in a recognized source to be considered "notable" and we do not second-guess such sources <g>. While the first might be BLP1E, the catenation with a major source listing him is, I suggest, dispositive that he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Collect (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that being listed in Getty Images is really enough, given that it's only about the student molestation charges, which I need to stress never actually went to court. It'd be a huge BLP issue (and possible nightmare) if one of the main arguments for notability stemmed around charges that never came to fruition, as he left his job before anything went further. To my knowledge crimes are pretty much considered to be alleged (with only a very few exceptions) if they do not go to court and until it goes to court, it shouldn't be considered notability giving. Even then, a crime is not automatically notable because it has received coverage, as the coverage has to be very extensive (meaning beyond routine) in order to show notability, given that this can be a BLP issue. In any case, Getty Images has a lot of pictures of various people and I've never seen it used as a source for notability. I'm just very, very leery about keeping an article on someone who has almost zero coverage on the Internet and his main claim to fame at this point in time is that a group of students accused him of molesting them under the guise that it was for art. That the article is also being used to promote the artist isn't really helpful either, although promotional-ness isn't a reason to delete in and of itself. I just kind of see this article being a nightmare to maintain given how insanely difficult it is to source this and that the coverage for him is, as New Media Theorist stated, for local shows. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Tokyogirl79 and New Media Theorist. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't meet WP:Creative, and the scandal is BLP1E material. Even the Getty image introduces him in the context of the scandal. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Belarusian Christian Democracy. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Young Christian Democrats[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. All citations are to groups own website. They are the youth wing of Belarusian Christian Democracy so that might be a plausible redirect. Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am in favor of automatically keeping all articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology. This is the sort of information that our readers have a right to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. File this under a rationale based on our policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia) if you wish, but in my opinion there should be a Special Notability Guideline here. Carrite (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge~~Delete for now~~ as there's simply no signs of better improvement here and the two other Wikis are no better and it's worth mentioning we are not them and if they are not better, what are the chances this article has? My searches found some links at Books and browser but nothing to suggest immediate improvement unless this can restarted better later. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Belarusian Christian Democracy, it doesn't look like BCD is a significant party (well, they don't currently have any seats), given the article size, I think we can merge for now. I am somewhat in line with Carrite's manner of thinking on this. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No objection to Merge to with Belarusian Christian Democracy Jbh ^Talk 13:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not at 300 members. I consider it a speedy A7. I am not willing to accept the contents of most national WPs on topics like this as proof by our standards. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A fairly close call, but I do think that there is a meeting of the minds that the subject, while accomplished, does not enjoy the level of notability needed for a stand alone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane Woodger[edit]

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

As far as I have been able to determine, this person fails both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. White Whirlwind 咨 01:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One book with 6 holdings (WorldCat) and no claim to notability beyond what the "average professor" does (prof X has studied Y). Agricola44 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a tricky one. The subject is only an associate professor, and academically looks to be an ordinary academic, but lots of hits in the Deseret News shows that she is a big figure in Utah and/or Mormon academia, and someone that the local newspapers turn to for comment. St Anselm (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep her work is cited by other authors [33], scholars [34]. She is the author of a number of books, which should be added to the page. There is, of course, the usual lds problem, i.e. she gets covered fairly heavily in Deseret, [35] and other lds publications. Her faculty page [36] and this one [37] show some accomplishment, a Utah Historical Society Prize. But the main thing is that her books do get reviewed in Deseret, [38], [39], [40].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, she is cited but not much. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. The WP:GNG problem with just the coverage in Deseret News, is that it is not significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cited on issues like this [41], and, therefore, linked from wikipedia pages like George Albert Smith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I did not say that the Journal of Mormon History was not a reliable source, nor that Woodger was not a reliable author. We are talking about notability. In this case it was a passing mention in a biographical article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. --Bejnar (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the most any of her work as been cited is "4". Clearly does not pass WP:NSCHOLAR, lack of independent coverage of her work also makes them clearly not pass WP:AUTHOR. The coverage is very localized, and this is the part which is the most difficult, but I don't believe it rises to the level where she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - per pass of WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Would you care to share with us the multiple reliable, independent sources in which she has significant coverage? Yes, coverage in the Deseret News, so you need not repeat that. --Bejnar (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note In addition to Deseret, Woodger gets coverage in the Daily Herald (Utah). Mormons read it, but it is totally independent of the church. And, as always needs to be pointed out with Utah Mormon AFDs, although Deseret is indirectly church-affiliated, it also covers Mormon-related topics for the same reason the Boston Globe intensely covers Irish-related topics and the Miami Herald intensely covers Latinos topics: it's what the readership wants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found two articles that mentioned her at Utah's Daily Herald. One from 2011 was just a list of speaking engagements which listed one of hers (no substance). The other was a review of the book that she co-authored with Susan Easton Black, New book spotlights LDS women of great accomplishment; unfortunately, it did not contain substantive coverage of Mary Jane Woodger. --Bejnar (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to have good enough coverage. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation provided sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures of Alfredo[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as I found nothing better than this (The Software Encyclopedia in 1989 and Personal Computing in 1988. It's also worth noting that not only has this not changed since starting in July 2006, it seems the author's account may have been "compromised" (the few 2015 contributions are certainly of concern and I question if that was actually someone else or simply a user looking to retire). Pinging tagger The1337gamer. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not documentable sufficiently for notability ; and , from what's in the article, I wouldnt expect anything better to be findable. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I remember watching these on my dad's computer back in the day and they were fairly well known. It's entirely possible that sourcing does exist, but isn't available on the Internet, as some videos like this one assert that it was covered in Softdisk magazine. However without anything to back up that that this was actually covered or the depth of coverage (it could have been a brief trivial mention), there's nothing that can be done about that. If anyone can show proof of coverage then that'd be different and I'd be open to changing my opinion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combilift[edit]

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

Another excellent example of a sparsely changed and almost unnoticed article and with search links at Books, News (One News link said they are "a major supplier of 4-way forklifts and other materials handling equipment to a wide variety of industry sectors", browser and Highbeam so I'm not seeing any signs of keeping this unless it can actually be improved. This was also tagged for speedy shortly after starting but was subsequently removed with only more information being added. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These sorts of firms are almost impossible to document in a satisfactory way by our notability standards DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, as per SwisterTwister and DGG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GRT Corporation[edit]

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

Another example of a sparsely changed and almost unnoticed article and I found some links at Books, browser and Highbeam but I'm not sure if this can be improved and kept in that case. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. r a y u k k. 21:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show it meets the notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Capital[edit]

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

This is an interesting one because although I considered simply speedying this, I think it needs a nomination because this article has stayed since November 2006 after being started by its founder and my searches simply found nothing better than some links here and the current version is simply unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indications are that the firm's founder now works elsewhere [42] and Unity Capital Partners Llp appears to no longer exist. Searches are locating nothing to indicate the firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per SwisterTwister and AllyD. Searches turn up hits, but all trivial. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oberthur Technologies[edit]

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

Seemingly obvious case of a non-notable and especially currently unacceptable article with my searches finding links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but I'm still not sure if this can be improved and accepted. This simply has not changed since starting in March 2010 and I'm pinging the only seemingly still interested users Orangemike and HollywoodCowboy. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At 882 million euros, probably large enough to be notable. With a longstanding apparently unchallenged article in both theFrench and German Wikipedia , certainly notable. Though our rules are different, I have very rarely seen a European company in the Fr WP that I would be comfortable deleting here, and I have never seen one in the deWP, which in all relevant aspects has a stricter notability standard than we do. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I usually don't disagree with SwisterTwister, but my searches turned up quite a bit on this company. Granted, some of it is quite recent (subsequent to the nom - such as this), but there appear to be enough in-depth coverage to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, such as this, this, this and this. In addition, there are literally of hundreds of mentions, which while brief, paint a picture of a major player in the technology the company provides. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can easily be sourced to WP:NCORP with a few of the 9670 news hits. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Continuing from previous AfD, the closing admin in their no-consensus-note stated that "The fundamental debate here is about the quality of the sources, and neither side has made a convincing enough argument to negate the other side." I am hence providing a reference analysis here. Following reference analysis is based on references used in this revision (19:05, 28 September 2015) of the article. The song still fails WP:NSONG which states "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." (emphasis added). The following source analysis is provided in order to establish how the emphasized clauses of the notability guideline are not met.

Sr. No.	Reference	Source	Source quality	It says about the song	Other notes
1	Asrar's career takes a Bollywood twist with Katrina's 'Afghan Jalebi'	DAWN	WP:RS	"While the song doesn't show Asrar at his vocal best and Amitabh Bhattacharya's lyrics are a far throw from Asrar's witticism, it is yet another example of Bollywood's appreciation for Pakistani talent."	Source talks about Asrar's other career.
2	Phantom: New song 'Afghan Jalebi' featuring Katrina Kaif is catchy as anything	IBNLive	WP:RS	"The catchy beats instantly want to make you listen to the again and again."	Source talk about the actress Kaif, credits people involved and the film in general.
3	'I did 'Afghan Jalebi' only because it did not objectify women:' Asrar	Radioandmusic.com	Non-RS	-	Interview of singer Asrar.
4	Afghan Jalebi from Phantom: Watch Katrina Kaif's shamsheer nigahein, chabook si adaayein	India Today	WP:RS	-	Source credits people involved.
5	Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba)	Youtube	WP:PRIMARY	-	Video of the song
6	Now, time for Afghan Jalebi	Tribune India	WP:RS	-	Source credits people involved.
7	VIDEO: 'चिकनी-चमेली' और 'शीला' के बाद अब 'अफगान जलेबी' बनीं कटरीना कैफ!	ABP News (Hindi language)	WP:RS	-	Source credits people involved. More stress on Kaif's looks, notes few dialogues of the film.
8	VIDEO: कतरिनाचं नवं गाणं आणि 'फँटम'चा कडक ट्रेलर	ABP Majha (Marathi language)	WP:RS	-	Source credits people involved. More or less similar to Source 7, but in Marathi language this time.
9	Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba)	BBC.co.uk	WP:RS	-	Blank. Plays 30 sec audio snippet of the song.
10	Phantom's First Song 'Afghan Jalebi' Is Out And Katrina Kaif Could Not Look More Sultry!	India Times	WP:RS	-	That’s all the whole "article" says: "We got to see the trailer of Kabir Khan's Phantom recently, and now the first track of the movie is out as well. Called 'Afghan Jalebi', this one's a promotional track and features Katrina Kaif in a super sultry avatar! A must watch!"
11	The Official Asian Download Chart	BBC.co.uk	? Not listed on WP: CHART	-	About chart says: “The Official Asian Download Chart is compiled by the Official Charts Company from UK sales data measured across a 7 day period from panel of more than 25 digital retailers”
12	Mirchi Top 20	Radio Mirchi	? Not listed on WP: CHART	-	The website has no information about how the chart is compiled.
13	Katrina Kaif on Skipping the Dancing in 'Phantom' Song 'Afghan Jalebi'	India-West	WP:RS	-	Kaif talks about not dancing in the song.
14	[43]	bollymeaning.com	Non-RS	-	Gives English translation and Hindi Romanization of song's lyrics
15	[44]	englishdekho.com	Non-RS	-	Used in article to give meaning of Hindi word Jalebi.
16	Phantom song ‘Afghan Jalebi’ is average, watch it only for smoking hot Katrina Kaif	Indian Express	WP:RS	"Its lyrics are ‘Main teri chugli karunga’ which one wouldn’t want to sing at all."	Source credits people involved.
17	Phantom's 'Afghan Jalebi...' song: All about Katrina's smoking hot looks	The Times of India	WP:RS	"The song is its catchy beats, while some unwanted lyrics could have been avoided"	Source credits people involved.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this AfD is not valid. As per Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, do not renominate the page for at least two months. And its been just 1 month since last AfD was closed as "No Consensus". --Human3015^TALK 10:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deletion essay says "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." I had asked the closing admin to reopen the first AfD in order to post this. But he didn't reply my post. Hence the new AfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best way was to go for Wikipedia:Deletion review. Renominating article for deletion within 1 month is really not worth, its more like wasting time of the community and involved editors. Anyway, I have given my opinion regarding validity of this AfD, closing admin will decide rest of the things, I'm done with this AfD. Best Luck. --Human3015^TALK 11:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is also dealt by community and "wasting time" would happen there too. And DRVs are meant to reconsider the "decision" and not when newer arguments are made. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea why it was not deleted before, there seems to be almost no detailed mention of this in any RS. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONGS per the reference analyses table. Faizan (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think some people will not die with peace unless this article will get deleted. I propose to delete this article because I don't want that above hounder's soul to hound me sometime in future if this article remains on Wikipedia. Hounding on Wikipedia is acceptable but I can't afford soul of these people in future, so it will be better to delete this article so that these people can die in peace in future and their soul will not hound me. Hope so. I request to closing admin to delete this article and liberate some souls. Actually I don't want this headache anymore, if this AfD closed as "no consensus" or "keep" then above hounders will again nominate it for deletion after 2-3 months so it will be better to delete it now and liberate these innocent narrow minded people. I think liberation of souls is more important than this useless song article. --Human3015^TALK 13:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the high levels of melodrama!

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article and references look fine to me. Oculi (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reference analysis provided. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phantom.The Avengers (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At least not as a bundle. Maybe some f the less important ones could be nominated individually. Sandstein 22:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per the last AfD on the subject, these individual German interchanges fail WP:GNG. Some of them have been recreated from the last AfD, including this one, but the sources cited give raw statistics without any interpretation of their meaning. Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have given all the information that was given in the German articles, unfortunately i can not find more I am sorry. Lokaas12 04:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokaas12 (talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't agree that all of these articles are about a non-notable subject, and that all of the articles should therefore be deleted on a blanket basis (which is all that is being suggested at the moment). At least some of the article subjects are clearly notable. For example, this recent OECD publication states that the Frankfurter Kreuz is the busiest road intersection in Europe. There are also (German language) reliable sources cited for some of the information in the two other articles in this list that are in my watchlist (although in one case the citations are only in the German wiki article at the moment). Also, even if it is the fact that there are few English language sources about these subjects, that doesn't make the subject matter non-notable. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of an article about a clearly notable subject is Dreieck Havelland, the en.wiki version of which has a number of inline citations to reliable sources. Yes, the sources are all in German, but the subject matter of the article is located in Germany. Also, at least some of the articles in the list above would be more appropriately tagged with the ((Expand German)) tag, because the equivalent de.wiki articles have more extensive referencing. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Nondescript interchanges. Dough4872 12:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We have Category:Motorway junctions in England where some of the English equivalents are categorised. These articles would belong in a German equivalent. The England category covers only a minority of intersections, even those between motorways. I suspect the appropriate answer is to selectively delete, but I am not qualified to select which. The fact that the only sources are in German does not prevent them being reliable sources; indeed, if all the sources were English ones, I would question how reliable they were. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedily keep as malformed nom. The items are clearly of different notablility. However the common feature of them is salvageability: per WP:NGEO, the information is clearly non-controversial and verifiable, and if an article is not warranted for a particular item, it should be merged into the corresponding larger articles rather than deleted. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least Frankfurter Kreuz and Kamener Kreuz, clearly notable intersections (second oldest and busiest in Europe, respectively). Procedural keep others per lack of research done by nominator. —Kusma (t·c) 08:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no comment. Eeekster (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please delete all articles. All articles fail to establish notability or why are they important. There are hundreds of millions of intersections in the world; going by the logic of these articles all should have a page on Wikipedia? Are we trying to convert an encyclopedia into a road-map? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AKS.9955: When the article has valid references, the correct approach is to merge the text wherever appropriate; see WP:NGEO. NOtability is criteria for existence of a separate article. It does not mean that valid nontrivial information must be always deleted. WIkipedia is not paper and has no size limit. If a crossroads in desribed in some sources, this means information about it is of potential interest to people. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AKS.9955: We cannot convert wikipedia into a road map: it already has too much of non-road data. But there is nothing wrong to have much geographic information. Of course wikidata would be a better place for this, but I don't think it will be usable any time soon. Even its handling of interwiki links sucks. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AKS.9955: From your statement, I will assume you did not read Frankfurter Kreuz, an article about the busiest interchange in Europe. If you do not read the articles, please do not make statements about them. —Kusma (t·c) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Perhaps also redirect somewhere, but that's up to interested editors to decide. Sandstein 20:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of the penny[edit]

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

Article about the removal of the Penny from circulation from several nations. The article seems to be a content fork. The subject is already covered in each nations specific article on the penny Canada,Australia etc. The external link is a POV site with an agenda which makes this article in it entirety look like a push for this agenda. What this boils down to is this article offers no further information then what is already available in other articles. The only references only speak to the Canadian event. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No article is perfect at the time they are created. I, or others, will improve it later. Huritisho 01:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the amount of content in the individual articles is not significant enough to merit forking them completely to a new article. I've removed the elink for blatant POV pushing. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I intend to improve the article, if, you know, you let me to Huritisho 01:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huritisho, this discussion will proceed for a minimum of seven days, and in that time I would be surprised if you didn't continue editing the page. An AFD nomination is not a guaranteed deletion, and I have seen nominations overturned when the article was sufficiently improved. Of course, copyright violations are serious business, and continuing to add them in will definitely result in deletion of the page. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Hm fine. I'll improve it tomorrow. I urgently need to go out for a beer right now. Cheers. Huritisho 01:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, soapboxing, factual errors, supposedly reliable sources that don't know what they're talking about and don't cover the elimination of pennies in general in any detail. Basically unsalvageable. If this is a valid article topic in the first place, which I rather doubt, WP:TNT applies. Huon (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: What?? You're not even going to give me some time to improve the article? How is an article supposed to be good in the first day after it is created? Also, why not at least merge it in penny? Huritisho 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's nothing worth merging. Starting over from scratch would be easier than to try and salvage this article - if it's a valid topic in the first place, which I doubt. Huon (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over from scratch? It is one paragraph long. And how come it is not a valid topic? There are tons of sources for the erradication of the penny Huritisho 01:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a content fork to me. Hard to see any value here. Obviously it's a recent addition, and creator should consider using their sandbox in the future. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legal tender#Withdrawal from circulation which has the potential to cover this matter with an international focus. Article as it stands is misleading as Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have never (to my knowledge) had coins named 'pennies'; and the Australia and New Zealand pennies were eliminated at decimalisation and replaced by equivalent coins (which in New Zealand, at least, were never referred to as 'pennies'). Daveosaurus (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Penny#Origin and history of development feels like the best outcome to me. But a separate article is evidently inappropriate as with many above. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just merged the article into Penny#Criticism. No need to discuss this any further. Huritisho 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, in a different form, probably with a different title (Withdrawal of low-denomination coins?), and more comprehensive references. This is certainly a notable subject, and even a list article of lowest denominations phased out would be helpful, giving the year of removal (e.g. Norway 1972, New Zealand 1987, Australia 1991, Vanuatu 2011, etc.) Such withdrawals are usually accompanied by significant, and form an important part of the history of any currency. This topic generally is important in the history of currency. St Anselm (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My wish was to keep too, but apparently no one else liked this article. I do think it is a notable subject. Anyway, you can keep the article but also leave part of the content in the penny article, I guess Huritisho 19:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we could just let this discussion run its course, and then created a new article later (which was suggested above per WP:TNT). The content has all been preserved. St Anselm (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not; it's just been deleted from Penny. St Anselm (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, the information was added to Penny as a result of creating the redirect. Since you undid the redirect, there was no reason for the text to be kept in the Penny article. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: The problem is that if you decide to delete the article, the content will be lost. There has to be a backup Huritisho 21:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just realized I can restore the content from the history page. Anyway, I hope this discussion will end soon. My concept of you is that you make a storm in a teacup way often Huritisho 21:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. There is no discussion going on. As the creator of this article, I will merge it into penny. Pretend that I initially added the content there and that this article never existed. Huritisho 21:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huritisho, AFD discussions stay open for seven days. Please wait until it is concluded. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Stop complicating things. Just pretend I never created this article and that I just expanded the penny article. Huritisho 21:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere. Per WP:TNT, I have started drafting a new article (User:StAnselm/Withdrawal of low-denomination coins). St Anselm (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: wow that looks good and promising. Huritisho 23:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Withdrawal of low-denomination coins is now in article space. I suggest that this article be directed there. St Anselm (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: Since my article is specifically about the penny, perhaps it could just be moved in the penny article, I think. It is just one paragraph long anyway. Huritisho 04:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-direct to Withdrawal of low-denomination coins — nice job on that article, StAnselm (talk · contribs). _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dashiell Howell[edit]

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

This actor has appeared in 3 films and 2 videos. I searched for "Dashiell Howell", "Dashel Howell" and "Dash Howell", but couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to War of the World's or C. Thomas or also simply delete as there is nothing at all to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has played minor roles in multiple films, hence redirecting to one of them wouldn't be appropriate.--Skr15081997 (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. insignificant actor DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yours, Mine & Ours (2005 film) ]. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brecken Palmer[edit]

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

All of this child actor's appearances have been along with his twin brother Bridger Palmer. They have played minor roles in a few films and TV episodes. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because he has most of his appearances along with his twin brother:

--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yours, Mine and Ours or simply delete as it seems that was their best known work. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have played minor roles in multiple films, hence redirecting to any one of them wouldn't be appropriate.--Skr15081997 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but in any case it seems this was the better known one as playing the lead family's kids and this is usually the case with most child actors to link to the closest and best known work (Julia Winter from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is one example). SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both he and his brother to the article on the show. Important enough characters to be worth a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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