The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria. In cases where an article is reasonably shown not to meet the gng than the bar is set higher and since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)[edit]

S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable BLP SageGreenRider (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Technically passes WP:CRIN, but perhaps this is an example where we have to remind ourselves that they are only guidelines: single match, no runs, no biographical details. StAnselm (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:CRIN is a guideline that suggests when a player is likely to be notable enough to have significant coverage. Part of the reason for blanket policies such as this, is that we don't always have access to local sources. Generally a first-class cricketer, even one who only played one match, will have received significant coverage in independent local sources. That said, this is clearly an extreme case. On the evidence we have access to online, the player does not meet GNG, as there is no significant coverage, what we have is purely statistical. Harrias ^talk 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as passes WP:NCRIC. If people want to challenge WP:NCRIC, they should start a proper discussion/debate at WT:CRIC or WT:NSPORT. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if the consensus here is keep then I think WP:NCRIC is too low a bar and should indeed be reviewed. For example, if the topic is a author, then it's not enough to publish a book with a reputable publisher. WP:AUTHOR read in part In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Or maybe WP:AUTHOR is too high of a bar? SageGreenRider (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can't compare the inclusion of an author to that of a cricketer. Cricket and the status of matches played makes such a comparison ridiculous. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Authors write books. Cricketers play cricket. According to policy neither is notable until multiple independent reliable sources publish significant coverage about what they do. I do not believe such coverage exists in the case of the subject here. SageGreenRider (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NCRIC. NCRIC is an easy guideline to follow, and as anal as the FC/LA/T20 rule might appear, it is nonetheless a simple rule to establish which players need articles. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If the result of policy is the retention of articles like this one, then I respectfully suggest it is broken.SageGreenRider (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I respectfully suggest you haven't the first clue about cricket. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No personal attacks, veiled or otherwise, please. WP:NPA SageGreenRider (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Where do we draw the line? A single major cricket match is the only possible line we can draw, otherwise what is the solution? We have a single, universally workable, criterion by which we judge whether a cricketer is notable for inclusion. We already make it a point to include the most comprehensive and accurate source available to us as to whether or not a cricketer is "notable" by this rule. No further complication needs to be made. Bobo. 23:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As far as I understand it, the guidelines are exactly the same for every competitive team sport. Cricket, football, American football, baseball, basketball, ice hockey... dozens that I've probably forgotten. Bobo. 23:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:BLP says in part "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." ...so that's what the line is. It beats an expediency based on a singular event IMHO. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please forgive me if I sounded abrupt in my comment. I haven't edited Wikipedia properly for a long time so it's rather fortunate I managed to catch this AfD notification when I did. Bobo. 00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No apology necessary. Honest men can have a difference of opinion. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The awkward thing about subject/topic-specific guidelines is that they need to exist so that we do have *some* lower bar. When I started making lists of redlinks of cricketers who (by WP:CRIC guidelines) are notable, I was never expecting there to be as many redlinks as there at first were, especially within English cricket - given how well the subject is already covered. Bobo. 00:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not aware of anything in policy that allows "subject/topic-specific guidelines ... need to exist so that we do have *some* lower bar" SageGreenRider (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • WP:N says in part "...notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..."
  • WP:BLP says in part "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
  • WP:MUST says in part "...the burden of evidence to provide reliable sources is on the editors that include it. Unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable." I understand that local sources are not very accessible to us, but I seriously doubt that the subject of this article ever received substantial coverage in some as yet undiscovered source. SageGreenRider (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment: What the guideline is saying here is that Perera is presumed to be notable. In other words, there would be lots of references to him in Sri Lankan newspapers of the 1990s, if only we could find them. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me implausible that such articles exist in this case. What substance would there be to write about? SageGreenRider (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment he is obviously notable for having played a first-class match. But we must also note that his date of birth is unknown and so is his given name. The only thing we can write about him is regarding the solitary match he appeared in. I feel we shouldn't create articles on cricketers with such limited information available. 117.192.188.97 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment. But do you feel we should keep it or delete it? SageGreenRider (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say delete, and it's best to not create articles on cricketers whose first name and date of birth both are unknown. Perera is a common surname and "S. Perera" could refer to anyone with that surname and whose first name starts with S. If either of these two basic details (first name and date of birth) can be found on a reliable source, this article might be worth keeping. 117.192.168.221 (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I totally agree with User:SageGreenRider that a policy that argues for keep for such non-entities is broken. I can see this entry as part of a list, but such substubs with no chance of ever growing should not be considered valid individual articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article *does* get deleted then there needs to exist a serious conversation about the consistency of the notability rules for almost all aspects of WP:ATHLETE, which is inextricably linked to WP:BIO. Yes, I know at the end of the day WP:GNG trumps them all, but this article is not the only article about a first-class cricketer with no known first-name and only a single first-class appearance. We can't have one rule for one and one rule for others. There needs to be consistency. A cricketer who has appeared in a single first-class match is no different from an American footballer who has just one NFL appearance, an ice hockey player who has only one NHL appearance, etc, etc. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia about cricketers with just a single first-class appearance. Bobo. 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Whatever the outcome, it seems to me that the presumption in WP:ATHLETE that every appearance will automatically generate substantial coverage is seriously flawed and needs review. A typical newspaper write up will only give substantial coverage to three or four players. In cricket, you have 22 so most won't get even a mention, never mind substantial coverage. In American football the problem is even worse because of free substitution. If each side has an offensive, defensive, and specialty 11, you have 66 players in a game. I'm guessing 60+ of those will not receive substantial media coverage. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being reasonable throughout all of this SageGreenRider. All I will say is that this cricketer is by no means in a unique situation regarding Wikipedia. By working to what a lot of people would consider the "lowest" possible bar (cricketers with a single first-class appearance as directed by WP:CRIC guidelines), I feel that it would be easier to "start from the bottom" and work up, if that makes sense. (Incidentally, that's what I meant when I was referring to a "lower bar" above). Bobo. 21:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just realized that for all my defence of this article I haven't actually !voted myself. Speedy keep for the simple reason of consistency, with the opportunity for further discussion in the right places. As I've explained above, the notability guideline for every single competitive team sport is the same, and if we disallow one from a list of thousands who share the same quality, someone has to go and disallow thousands of others, not just from cricket but from at least five other sports. Cricket is not alone on Wikipedia for being a sport which allows articles for people with a single professional appearance. If I may suggest that if this article is kept, discussion is ignited at the appropriate place for discussion regarding the guidelines on individual sports - of which I believe for competitive team sports, they are all the same - consistent and simple to follow and adhere to. Bobo. 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sports guideline says that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept", for a single match player whose name we don't know I doubt any good sources exist, let alone finding them. A reasonable standard would be if a player regularly appears in games and/or if fans at the time could easily recognize them then they probably would have good coverage, thus notable. Single match no-names, not so much. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rainbow unicorn. This does not pass WP:NSPORT which clearly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." The keep !votes here have not offered any policy-based argument. StAnselm (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 20:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hăghiac[edit]

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

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

Nothing to disambiguate here. There are no articles for these villages and en.wiki is not a wiki-dictionary to disambiguate terms and proper names. XXN, 22:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar case: Hoancă. --XXN, 22:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are many such disambiguation pages that don't have articles yet. Hăghiac on the Romanian wiki shows these villages do exist. It is a plausible search term and hopefully someone will make the articles. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, two valid entries, neither primary topic. older ≠ wiser 09:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: valid and useful dab page. PamD 10:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, XXN, both entries are valid and meet MOS:DABMENTION. It is in no way a dictionary definition, but each entry gives a link to an article with information on a place named Haghiac. That is exactly what a disambiguation page is about - showing readers to pages where they can find information on that topic, whether that information is short or long. It is not totally relevant to this discussion as the page is valid anyway, but both entries would meet WP:NPLACE too. Would the nominator consider removing the nomination and closing this? Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sense in such false disambiguation pages for non-existing articles. Here, on en.wp, probably does not exists a single article about a Romanian village, but there are tonns of such false disambiguation pages with no direct links to relevant articles with titles containing the disambiguated term! With similar succes we can create disambiguation pages for all streets around the world, 98% of them being non-notable and thereby disambigs being useless. Well, you can close this debate, but there is necessary an adjustment to related policy to not admit such ″disambiguations″. --XXN, 16:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's a disappointing response. AfD is not here for you to nominate articles because you think the guidelines shouldn't allow them, but because you think they don't meet thr guidelines. Changing guidelines is a topic for discussion elsewhere. This is in no way a false disambiguation page. It links to relevant articles containing information on the disambiguated term, and it's information the reader is interested in, and that your proposal would hide from them. No, we couldn't create dabs for all street names, because they are not things worth mentioning in articles, so there would be no basis for a dab entry for the vast, vast majority of road names. The fact that there aren't many articles on Romania shows room for improvement on our coverage of non-Anglophone topics, not a reason to try to make the information harder for readers to find. As you won't remove your nomination, despite your mistake being pointed out to you by several editors, other editors will have to waste their time as this will probably have to remain open for several days. Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both places now have articles. Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I withdraw my nomination. Discussion can be closed.--XXN, 01:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right to rent[edit]

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

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

An article about a trial in a renting system, this does not meet WP:GNG and is within WP:NOTNEWS McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put out a message asking for help with an article. Instead I got someone start adding speedy deletion tags on half a dozen articles. How foolish of me to ask for help! Anyway This is a major govt policy in the UK as anyone that types 'right to rent' into google news would realise. Would anyone like to help me improve the article? DanielJCooper (talk) 22:20, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted (Wande Coal's Album)[edit]

Wanted (Wande Coal's Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. A newly released album with no evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources, including the three that I have already added the the article. There is enough to meet GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep likely as this seems to have at least an acceptable amount of coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn I withdraw my nomination to Speedy Keep the article per above. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imoh Son of David[edit]

Imoh Son of David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The sources provided are social blogs with no editorial oversight. He is evidently not the subject of Sahara Reporters. He might be notable in the future but WP:TOOSOON to have an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia at this time. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy. The article is overly promotional ("foremost atheist author" etc.) Most links are to his own articles or his books on Amazon. Every URL was mal-formed (I've fixed that) which made verifying the sources rather difficult. Others link to pages that seem unrelated to the subject. I suspect that the author of this article should have gone through AfC because they don't understand notability or referencing. If nothing else, this is too soon because the book's date on Amazon is Oct 15, 2015, so it's only been out a few weeks. The article was created 2 days ago. We should at least offer "userfy" and going through AfC. However, I'm not very hopeful that it would pass. LaMona (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and above editors. LaMona's assessment is particularly spot-on. I would agree with the userfy, except the creator of the article has not shown an interest in participating in this discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

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

A professional wrestling group that has existed for less than a month and has done nothing in that month that makes them notable. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 21:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 21:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 21:51, 31 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Fazl Syed Mahmood Quadri[edit]

Abul Fazl Syed Mahmood Quadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability proven, esp. for English Wikipedia. The person has published a few non-English books but no independent reviews are available. Google returns few hits if any. The original author might have conflict of interest (the article subject likely is a family member, judging from family name). kashmiri ^TALK 21:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability established. Weak internet presence. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet another biography without any biographical details, and none that might be found in English to verify such facts. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing on the search engines turned up enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. May be editorially redirected.  Sandstein  07:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes by magnitude[edit]

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

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

It's unclear what this is, and I'd say that it's just not necessary. It looks like it's going to reproduce, in part, what we already have in our lists (in the Compared to other years section). I can't be sure of this, but that's what it looks like. The user that posted this fails to communicate, so we'll likely never know, but some of their other other creations have been problematic. At one point, the editor requested deletion, only to change their mind half an hour later. This article is not a good fit for WikiProject Earthquakes. Dawnseeker2000 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - this would be a very interesting article if it provided some content. bare naked tables with no explanation offer little to a reader. poorly sourced. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Lists of earthquakes#Largest earthquakes by magnitude which has this content. The redirect List of earthquakes by magnitude also exists to the same destination. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if someone is willing to finish the chart; or, if someone really wanted to push it, Merge to Lists of earthquakes or List of 21st-century earthquakes. I don't see the duplicate content in Lists of earthquakes that StarryGrandma implied. The information seems encyclopedic, and it's not really a "list of earthquakes", but more like a list of magnitudes with the event counts for each year. The main problems I see with this page are: (1) it's incomplete; (2) the tables need to be flipped so that the magnitudes are on top and years on the side, or the table is going to become very wide as the years go on; and (3) the numbers have periods instead of commas for thousands separators. --Closeapple (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment on my above vote: Dawnseeker2000 pointed out that some earthquake year articles do have this kind of chart, for integer magnitude ranges and the appropriate decade. They don't have them broken down by tenths; but then, neither does most of this page under discussion, since the tables are blank right now. --Closeapple (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is an WP:Encyclopedia and should be a summary of published work. Data like this can go in Wikidata, but for it to be in Wikipedia, it needs to cite sources which also present tables like this and this article needs to have a narrative. This is out of scope of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability requirements have been meet. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haining Open[edit]

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

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

Article's first reference discusses the player mentioned in its title, not the event, second reference hits a 404 error (dead link). There may be references in Chinese to indicate the notability of this article's subject, but there do not appear to be sufficient English language sources that do. Failing their appearance, I propose it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 13:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This event is an annual Players Tour Championship event entering it's second year featuring a significant number of the world elite players including the reigning World Champion (who is also the current defending champion of this event). The event is recognised by World Snooker and just as significant as Yixing Open or any of the annual event's held in Europe such as the Gdynia Open, Riga Open and Ruhr Open. The 404 error (dead link) appears to have been fixed to a credible English language source, making the event significant enough to warrant keeping. - Golf is super cool (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per previous comment. - Punkkiddy (|talk) 15:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Might be a poor article but must be kept. One of the Players Tour Championship 2015/2016 events. Nigej (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. From de:Haining Open 2014 the verifiable notability of the 2014 ought to be unquestioned. I did a search for sources on this years tournament, and there are plenty, a little selection in four languages...^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]}

Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Mansfield[edit]

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

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

Poorly-sourced WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as a city councillor. Prior discussion landed at no consensus, and there's been no discernible improvement since, so it's time for a revisit. While Indianapolis is a large enough city that a councillor could be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #3 if the article were substantively written and properly sourced, the "automatic inclusion for big city councillors" which was cited by the keep side in the original AFD applies only to cities in the global city class of metropolises — which Indianapolis is not in. Every past or present Indianapolis city councillor who actually has a Wikipedia article got that article for holding some office at the state or federal levels after their terms on city council — with the exception of the newly created Zach Adamson, also already up for deletion, nobody else has an article if Indianapolis' city council is the highest level of notability they have attained. In addition, this article is sitting on one solitary reference — a Blogspot entry, which doesn't count as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS. Despite claims of further sourceability in the original discussion, not even one source has been added to the article in the intervening four years — and even in the original discussion, the dispute hinged on whether or not there was enough sourcing that was substantively about her. And on the matter of substance, all we've got here is that she voted for the city's human rights ordinance in 2006. None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance of the article, is enough to get a city councillor into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We need more and better sources to keep articles on members of city councils.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this stub needs significant improvement. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She meets WP:POLITICIAN as a city council member of a major metropolitan city, Indianapolis. The article needs improvement though. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum standard for automatic "because she exists" inclusion of a city councillor is not "metropolitan city of regional prominence" — it's "alpha, beta or gamma class global city", which Indianapolis is not. In a city in Indianapolis" "metropolitan but not globally prominent" class, a city councillor could pass WP:NPOL #3 if her passage of WP:GNG, on the strength of media coverage, was already demonstrated in the as written version of the article — but Indianapolis is not a city where city councillors get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist. It's a city where a city councillor only gets an article if you can write a good and well-sourced one right off the bat, and not one where any councillor ever gets to keep, even temporarily, an article that's written and sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because no one's taken the time to improve the article does not mean that the article is not notable. Fyi - This does seem to be more of a personal matter to you. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "because no one's taken the time to improve the article" does "mean that the article is not notable". City councillors in places outside the global city class of cities are not a class of topic that are entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist; they're a class of topic that only gets to have an article if that article is already well-written and well-sourced enough to satisfy WP:GNG right off the bat. If you think she can be sourced well enough to satisfy WP:NPOL #3, then the onus is on you to show that by actually putting in the work to source her over NPOL #3 — but our notability standards for city councillors do not permit her to even temporarily keep an article that's sourced exclusively to a Blogspot blog with no evidence of RS coverage shown. Even a person who actually held an "automatic NPOL pass" office, like a President of the United States or a state governor, still wouldn't get to keep an article that was sourced that poorly.

And no, it's not "personal", except insofar as respecting and maintaining and following Wikipedia's content and sourcing and inclusion standards is a thing that we're all supposed to take seriously. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Consensus has consistently been that we do not routinely include members of the city council for even large cities like Indianapolis. The only US cities I'm sure we include are NYC and Chicago, & I think I could justify Boston. Outside the US, it would depend on the role of the council. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and above editors. Not enough non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to meet notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Adamson[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as a city councillor. While Indianapolis is certainly a large enough city that a member of its city council could potentially be considered to satisfy WP:NPOL #3 if the article were well-written and well-sourced, it is not in the narrow range of global cities for which we automatically accept all city councillors — with one exception which I'm about to nominate separately, every past or present Indianapolis city councillor who actually has a Wikipedia article got that article for holding some office at the state or federal levels after their terms on city council. And this article, for that matter, is neither well-written nor well-sourced, reading like a campaign brochure and resting entirely on primary sources like his own website, a newspaper article in which he's the bylined author and not a subject, and a press release on the website of a directly affiliated organization. All of which means that nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced enough, to get him into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Pinging past users PRehse and Hebrides. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I totally agree with the rationale above. Hebrides (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Isn't he more notable as the first LGBT elected official in Indiana? Kestenbaum (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading the claim. Indiana had openly LGBT elected officials before Adamson; he's just being claimed here as the first LGBT person to hold office at the county level in particular, not the first one to hold any office whatsoever in the entire state. And while that might be enough to make him eligible for a properly sourced article, no claim of notability ever entitles a person to keep an article that's parked exclusively on primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree except for the last part. Cut the cake fine enough and we all have a piece. First LGBT elected official at the Indiana county level is a pretty fine cut - not notable even with decent sourcing.Peter Rehse 17:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

He is not, was not first openly elected county official in Indiana, Sue Wanzer elected to Monroe County School Board, Bloomington, IN from 2000 to present, Elizabeth Cure Monroe County Circuit Judge 2008 to present...if there are two that precede him, there are probably more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.188.224.2 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per the nom (Bearcat), who must be lauded for their excellently detailed nomination rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Campbell (Musician)[edit]

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

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

Ostensibly a WP:BLP of a musician, this is actually a WP:COATRACK for his album instead of an article about him. The problem, however, is that WP:NALBUMS specifies that an album cannot have an article if the musician or band who recorded it doesn't have an article first — and moving the album's article so that it's simultaneously serving as an "article" about the musician is not a bypass around that if the content is all about the album. Furthermore, the article is resting entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with no evidence of coverage in any reliable sources to confer notability on either the musician or the album. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can find enough sources to do this properly next time (i.e. a BLP of the musician as an actual topic in his own right, and then a separate article about the album.) Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as WP:COATRACK as per @Bearcat's rationale which I adopt. Quis separabit? 13:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bearcat's analysis. Pure WP:COATRACK, in addition, searches did not turn up anything to show that this musician passes WP:GNG. News turned up a bunch of hits, but none seem to be about this particular musician (although they turned up at least 4 other musicians of this same name). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No RS for subject of article. Only 3rd party source is an individual's blog. LaMona (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

66 Raw[edit]

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

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

I have not found a single reliable source for this article. No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG Jim Carter 19:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Completely unsourced article, and I'm not surprised. Searches on News, Newspapers, Scholar, Books and Highbeam returned a single hit - to the channel's website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see no better improvement. Pinging past users Xezbeth and MrRadioGuy. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Defence Institute[edit]

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

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

Non-notable institute. Despite editing from various new accounts for 3 weeks, the article has no independent sources, and no evidence of notability independent of the main university. Note: I removed one link to an unreliable "news website" (see history). Google search for English-language sources found nothing in-depth. Faculties and sub-institutes without in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources should be covered in the main article University of Defence (Czech Republic) (which also lacks sources). Wikipedia is not a webhost to publish indiscriminate organization info. GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because all articles lack any reliable sources, and have been created by the same group of COI-editors. An (admittedly quick) Google search revealed no significant coverage, only passing mentions and listings.

Faculty of Military Health Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Faculty of Military Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Faculty of Military Leadership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Security and Military Strategic Studies Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please let me know, if any of the 4 institutes are special cases and need separate discussion, but it should be possible to handle them in one case. GermanJoe (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete likely as I'm not seeing any better improvement or a need for separate articles. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I haven't been able to find any sources either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - nothing in searches showed the notability of any of them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HELIX STUDIOS[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Fails both criteria, as no independent secondary reliable sources seem to exist to provide significant coverage and assert any notability. If it weren't for the credible claim of significance that the article seems to barely scrape, I'd say that this article could be A7'd. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails notability with very few reputable sources backing it up. S. Salim (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being the " largest academy studio company in the world" might be a "suitable" assertion of notability if this were instead the biggest studio to create nature films, or anime films, or drama films, or thriller films... but one the largest to manufacture gay "twink" porn? Nope. I think we can ignore that it is not spoken about in The New York Times, and is instead spoken of in sources that are sullied and refutable. We can ignore coverage and mention in genre sources such as Q-Notes, LGBT Weekly, The Wire, Brow Beat, Big Gay Picture Show, SDGLN, Spin, Tetu (French), Zeit (German), or GGG (German), and let this twink film academy go. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am invoking my personal discretion here and closing this ahead of schedule. This discussion has devolved into ad hominem and other inappropriate behavior that is not at all related to the article in question. This is not the correct venue for that. — Earwig ^talk 05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triadenum fraseri[edit]

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

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

Delete per WP:G5. Page creator is now blocked sock of indef banned user USER:ColonelHenry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The G5 has already been declined and no additional rationale has been provided. As a species of plant it is inherently notable. --Michig (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete was declined, Michig, but the article is still eligible for deletion based on WP:G5. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me what good would come to the encyclopaedia if we were to delete this article. As an exercise, do not cite any essay, rule or edict. Alakzi (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G5 exists to keep those who sock from being encouraged to sock again -- it's along the same lines of WP:DENY. If the article created by the sock is allowed to stand, the sock gets recognition and a "permission" to do the same again, under another sock account. It's a psychological and behavioral move, actually. When a sock creates articles, adds content, uploads files and sees their username attached, there is a feeling of satisfaction that legitimizes and encourages further socking behavior. For many in Wikipedia, there is an emotional feeling of "ownership" when they have started an article, developed it, and added content. When they see their username attached to such edits, it gives them a sense of satisfaction and legitimizes socking. If their edits and/or created articles and uploaded files are removed, there is no recognition, no visual encouragement to continue in the unwanted behavior (socking). The essay on WP:Deny recognition explains this quite nicely.

One more note, Alakzi: The socking and disruption by this individual is not just a one-sock deal. What's been going on with this individual has been happening for (from what I can gather) at least a decade. See this for a more in-depth look at it all. This is an extreme case of long term abuse and should be dealt with accordingly. In fact, I encourage all editors chiding me for bringing this AfD look at the extensive history of this user as outlined in the AN/I link above (that would include Michig, Liz, and even DD2K. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not necessary to undo all of their work - both good and bad - because an incredible essay that cites no credible sources says so. If and when you've been published, I might consider your theory of the mind of 'socks'. Until such time, allow me to be sceptical that this practice (a) acts as a deterrent and (b) outweighs the damage that would befall the project by deleting a sourced article on a notable topic. Alakzi (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be no good reason for this nomination except animosity between editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animosity has absolutely nothing to do with it, and I highly resent your implication that I am doing this simply to piss off the now-banned editor, Liz. It's comments like that which make me remember why I stated what I did at your RfA (even though, in the end, I did !vote "Support"). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious to anyone with common sense that you are reverting all of that editors comments, edits, files and articles based on pure animosity. I suggest you revert yourself or you will find yourself at ANI for disrupting the project with your Pointy behavior. This is just pure disruption and hurting the project. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so certain that my actions are blockable, solely out of animosity, and are meant to hurt "the project", please feel free to take your concerns to AN/I and see how it works out, DD2K. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The material is encyclopedic and backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. The persistent efforts to take revenge by deleting the content created by a blocked user are disruptive in and of themselves and only serve to make Wikipedia worse. Alansohn (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prove your claims of revenge or keep such personal attacks to yourself, Alansohn. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of your disruptive edits uses the same edit summary, pointing to your efforts to undo and remove encyclopedic content using WP:DENY as an excuse. That's exactly what you say you're doing. Every single edit you've reverted and undone has proven to be a removal of productive content. Let me remind you that WP:DENY is an essay, not a policy that serves as a valid justification for anything. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that WP:NPA is not "a mere essay", that you already have a history of being brought to task for personal attacks and incivility against other editors, and that your dislike for my actions in regard to denying a banned sockmaster and long-term abuser is no valid justification for your continued personal attacks against me. Like I said, please prove your accusations or lock it up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that nothing here is a personal attack; It's a commentary on your persistent pattern of pointless disruption, whatever your excuse. Stop destroying Wikipedia and I'll stop pointing out that you're being disruptive. I've proven my claim based on your edit summaries and you're abusive use of WP:DENY to justify your deletion of sourced content. Deal with the problems that you've caused and stop playing the blame game. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"nothing here is a personal attack" Bullshit. It's just a continuation of the personal attacks and false accusations you have been launching against me practically everywhere you've been in Wikipedia for the last several hours. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bullshit" is a personal attack. Look above and you'll see that you have no company agreeing with you that this article isn't encyclopedic; Every one agrees that your motives here appear questionable and that the result is disruptive. Calm down, cool off, and try to contribute to Wikipedia. This ain't working. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Role[edit]

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

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

Absolutely no significant reliable coverage for this webseries on Twitch. It doesn't help that its name makes it difficult to look for hits. I thrice tagged this for speedy deletion but various users kept removing the tag, so AfD it is. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion tag has been removed repeatedly because your claim of the lack of significance is unfounded. The article lists several prolific voice actors as cast of the show. It has hundreds of thousands of viewers and has collected tens of thousands USD in charity donation, each of which alone should be enough to qualify as a reason for WP:Significance. 5.147.15.44 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a popular web series or being involved in charity are not strong claims to notability. Please read WP:GNG and WP:POPULARITY for more information. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not required under WP:Significance, which was your initial reason for speedy deletion. I quote: "Significance is a much lower standard than notability." 5.147.15.44 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the speedy deletion tag by one of the editors on this page was inappropriate. That said, I see no reason for this article to be deleted. It is no less significant or notable than articles on other major Twitch streamers like Trump_(Hearthstone_streamer), who has a much more difficult name to search for. Deleting the article because of the common name despite being well-sourced is an error, in my opinion.--Marstead (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the the notation. Several of the new editors are more aware of the rules governing the speedy deletion tag, and are making strides to be sure that the article is conforming to standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.16.204 (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, it probably was inappropriate, especially doing so without any explanation. But as someone not familiar with the daily workings of Wikipedia, I have to ask: is it a common practise to flag new articles for speedy deletion, minutes after they have been created, before anyone even had a chance to work them over? 176.198.254.196 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The commonality of the name makes it difficult to research, but I can find no sources which cover the show in-depth which are from reliable independent sources. WP:Significance is a standard used in speedy deletions; AfD requires the higher standard of notability, which this article, which is currently sourced only by non-reliable, and non-independent sources, does not come close to meeting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does reference such a source: A 1 hour and 20 minutes long podcast with Critical Role as it's main topic (in-depth) made by Wizards of the Coast, a major games developer (reliable) that is not directly affiliated to Geek&Sundry or Critical Role (independent).^[1] 5.147.15.44 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that you consider WOTC "independent" of what is essentially a giant product placement of one of their major commercial lines is a bit telling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge WOTC is no way, shape or form affiliated with Geek&Sundry or Critical Role; that makes it independent. And according to WP:BIASED, "sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". 176.198.254.47 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been steadily gaining specific independent medial coverage citations that speak to notability and significance and that are not directly affiliated to Geek&Sundry or Critical Role (independent).Example ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennefRiggles (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG has a three prong requirement where each prong must be met, and the EW fails spectacularly on the "significant coverage" prong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I disagree with one editor's repeated removal of the speedy deletion tag from this article, it has received edits from other users and appears to be a significant and well-sourced article. Any vote to delete this article should explain why Trump_(Hearthstone_streamer) and Kripparrian should not also be deleted by the same argument. Trump & Kripparrian are comparably popular Twitch streamers but their wiki articles are more poorly-sourced. This article should not be deleted because of its "common name". Please see other sources posted here by other editors for reference.--Marstead (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see an argument to rename the article Critical Role (web series) if this helps with the name commonality concern.--Marstead (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see enough sites on the article covering and mentioning the show to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria Darquis (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since sufficient, independent sources exist. Disambiguation, as per Marstead's suggestion could be helpful. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 01:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Independant sources citing Critical Role - Previous users stated coverage for the series was hard to find.

^[3] Sandiego.com's announcement of G&S and Critical Roles appearance at San Diego Comic Con

^[4] IMDB entry for Critical Role

KennefRiggles (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) KennefRiggles[reply]

^[5] Tvtropes entry for Critical Role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.119.181 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^[6] "Vin Diesel nerding out over Dungeons and Dragons is an amazing slice of internet" The Independent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.119.181 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^[7] Diesel Powered D&D: Watch Vin Play Dungeons and Dragons as His 'Last Witch Hunter' Hero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.119.181 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems all but one of the above are just brief mentioned and are more about D&D and the streamers rather than the show itself. If the streamer had his own Wikipedia article I would not be opposed to a merge. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and other than the Independent, not one is a reliably published source. And the Independent is textbook example of trivial mention.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not appropriate ..Previous suggestion of "merging" with the streamer article does not apply, Geek & Sundry, who produces the show is a legit company with its own Wikipedia article, and over 50% of the cast members also have their own Wikipedia articles, wich are clearly detailed in the article in question and have been since 24 October 2015. --KennefRiggles (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not gained by being tied to notable others. the topic itself must be the subject of coverage -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no significant coverage about the subject in third party reliable sources. while someone has done a good job of refspam, even a cursory review shows that most blatantly fail WP:RS. when looking at the few remaining third party reliable sources: Independent, Entertainment Weekly, Polygon, they either only briefly mention the subject in passing or dont even mention the subject at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny how people that vote for deletion keep ignoring the D&D podcast (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/critical-role-livestreaming-dd) which has been referenced in the article since day 1. 95.222.157.46 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny how people consider that WOTC should somehow be considered an "independent" source for a subject that is essentially a product placement commercial for a major WOTC product. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that this defensive attitude may be poisoning the well for the editors voting to delete this page, even though this user's point is valid. I think the decision to Keep or Delete this page should not be made in reaction to this attitude or the repeated erroneous removal of the speedy deletion tag--please see my comment and compromise suggestion below. I think given the quality source (Official Wizards of the Coast reference) a disambiguated article title should be a fair compromise for all involved. Marstead (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Suggestions Regarding Geek & Sundry Merge; Disambiguation Compromise Good comments, everyone, and thank you for calling out the Geek & Sundry article! Reviewing that article (Geek & Sundry), I think arguing to merge Critical Role there is comparable to merging Breaking Bad into the article on AMC_(TV_channel). I'm not sure that's the right solution, particularly since the other programming for Geek & Sundry doesn't have comparable details listed. It would stand out in that article. There is already precedent in the Programming section of the Geek & Sundry article to include links to details on the individual shows, where such details are available (for example, see TableTop_(web_series) and The_Guild_(web_series). In fact, that precedent (appending (web_series) to the article name) is a good argument for renaming Critical Role to Critical Role_(web_series) and keeping it listed on the Geek & Sundry page. I think this is a fair compromise to those who originally requested speedy deletion, which was in part based on the "commonality" of the show's name. As has been discussed above, the article has been improved; it is decently-written and reasonably-sourced (in particular, see the Wizards of the Coast official podcast link) and I don't really think there's a strong argument to outright delete it here if renaming it will make everyone happy. Again, I feel like the articles on comparably notable partnered Twitch streamers like Kripparrian should be our baseline for comparison. Given the amount of improvement on the article since the initial nomination for speedy deletion, I think it deserves to remain, maybe under a new disambiguated name. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper - speedy deletion is meant to be used when an article is obviously bad, completely unnotable, or clearly vandalism. While this article still has room for improvement, I do not believe it is any of these three things. Marstead (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 5.147, KennefRiggles, and especially Marstead. Disambiguating the title would be beneficial. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 20:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - if anything, it is now better sourced than last I weighed in, and I don't find the previous arguments to be convincing. If there's really a concern that the title is confusing, Marstead's suggestion for disambiguation would be fine, but given the lack of other similarly titled or easily confused articles I don't know that it's necessary Darquis (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as there's no better coverage convincingly better but feel welcome to restart when a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adorya Baly[edit]

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

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

fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. No sources conform WP:RS in the article. WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep a quick search finds independent sources confirming the notability claim (winning the national Miss BVI title) [1] [2]. Winning the national beauty title and representing at Miss Universe has in the past been a sufficient notability claim (see Template:Miss_Universe_2015_delegates). --  R45  ^talk! 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Tonie Chisholm (now a redirect after several removals and recreations), Paola Nunez Valdez (removed at least three times under several names) and Markélla Konstantínou (removed at least three times under several names)? The Banner talk 14:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You have created over two dozen AFDs of national beauty pageant winners that have failed (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Pageant_articles_under_attack for a partial list), and your talk page shows many failed speedy nominations that failed. Frankly I don't think you created this in good faith, and individually nominating beauty queens does not appear to be appropriate way to contest the overall basis of notability that impacts hundreds of persons. I have no vested interest in these pages, but you're going on a crusade here. --  R45  ^talk! 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So far your disruptive campaign on AN/I. I hope you have time to read WP:AGF. The Banner talk 00:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: At least this source confirms that she is winner of Miss British Virgin Islands so she is notable. Miss British Virgin Islands is member of Miss Universe.--Human3015^TALK  14:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still just known from WP:ONEEVENT. The Banner talk 14:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not "one event", as a winner of Miss British Virgin Islands she will be participating in 2nd event Miss Universe representing British Virgin Islands. --Human3015^TALK  22:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • To my opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, it is just one event comprising out of a local preliminary round and an international round. But still just one event "Miss Universe 2015". The Banner talk 21:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being Miss BVI does not make her notable. What makes someone notable is substantial coverage in relaible independent sources, and in this case there is nothing outside of the context of the pagent itself, so that's WP:ONEEVENT, for which we have a redirect tot he article on the pageant. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Multiple independent sources exist regarding this person ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) enough to pass WP:GNG, but this person definitely fits into WP:1E in that the event itself is not highly significant (a new winner is "crowned" every year). Therefore, a redirect to Miss British Virgin Islands appears to be the most appropriate action. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above- No evidence of notability, Fails BLP1E &. –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guy's rationale above. The pageant editors need to (a) understand the concept of individual notability for a stand-alone article requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG, and (b) have a plan for how they are going to treat contestants who are not notable in either the main pageant article or a list. Winning a pageant, without satisfying GNG, does not make a winner notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw^talk 15:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zedrick Restauro[edit]

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

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

Subject fails our subject specific notability policy of WP:NACTOR. Subject has not played any significant role in the mainstream films, only minor roles. Other than WP:SPSs and unreliable sites, I can't see any significant coverage in third party reliable sources other than few passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Jim Carter 10:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Average and ordinary actor with no outstandingly obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Fails WP:NACTOR with only minor roles - does not seem to meet any of the 3 criteria: 1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3 Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as has been so ably pointed out, he doesn't currently meet WP:NACTOR, and searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those in favor of "keep" have made no policy-based arguments showing that the subject meets notability guidelines. Jujutacular (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M. Dawood Khan[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)).

M. Dawood Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. The sources mention Khan only in passing, or not at all. The tone is promotional, the content not based on what the sources report about Khan. Huon (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Individual is notable personality in Pakistan and UAE..I suugest to keep it GreenCricket (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - non-notable self promotion article. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don’t see why he is not a notable personality as you say he isn’t. He has been mention in BBC, Financial Times, Times of London & Hindustan Times to name a few international sources, not to mention almost all of Pakistan’s local News Papers and TV Channels have written about him / his company Prime Transport Limited which he owns 100%.
  
  I am not promoting him but stating the facts, three consecutive Prime Ministers of Pakistan have either favored or opposed him.
  
  There have been debates on his project and him in National Assembly (Lower House of Representatives) and Senate (Upper Hose), what else will make a man notable then his own countries Parliamentarians discussing about him.
  
  I have stated just a brief of a long list of articles and discussions that have gone on and on about him and his project. Which I intend to add on in coming days, I say it should stay on and not be deleted as I have much more articles backup to prove my stance. Naeem.ptl (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Individual is notable personality in Pakistan and UAE..I suugest to keep it. SDK (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While the article could be improved, the person is clearly notable, as he has been criticized by the opposition party in the National assembly, so Keep. Martinogk (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why the page should be deleted ??? Other lesser notable personality have articles on Wikipedia and Khan has been discussed numerous times in National Assembly & Senate which is backed by number of News Articles.Naeem.ptl (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources are either forum boards or "Khan said..." name drops/mentions. Additionally, these sources are stacked, forming a bit of CITEKILL in places, and leaving much of the page unsourced. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because wp:BIO1E - Basically, the entire article hinges on reports that his company got the contract to build London-type cabs. That's not enough to hang an article on. Also, much of the article is unsourced and some of the language is promotional. LaMona (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All articles in the reference are from independent sources on which Khan has no control, all are sourced but one "International News Network” of which I am trying to find the proper link and should have it linked soon, for rest all 14 references are fully back by independent source. Additionally its not a contract given to his company, it’s a system of transport that is initiated by Khan in whole of the country. Naeem.ptl (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naeem.ptl, I have struck your second !vote. You are welcome to comment further on this discussion, but continued "keeps" will do nothing. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - based solely on guidelines, searches turn up nothing which meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Tarkan[edit]

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

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

Seemingly obvious case of no better notability and improvement and my searches found nothing better than this so unless better sources are found, I'm not seeing much here and this hasn't changed much since starting in August 2010. Pinging Hasteur. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If these maintenance templates haven't been fixed in over 4 years, that's a indication that there's a lack of notability/interest in this page. This is effectively a vanity-bio and not seeing any real compelling arguments for keeping this. No objection to Userfication/Draftspacing to allow the author/advocate to improve the content. Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I removed a large part of this article as a WP:COPYVIO of the subject's own site. The other two references are inaccessible for verification, but I don't see the claims in the article as establishing encyclopaedic notability (and note also DJ Magazine#Top 100 Controversies), and am seeing nothing better. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not seeing enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated Rite[edit]

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

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

This is a content fork for a term used as a title for a "path of progression." This article is simply an amalgamation of material covered much more extensively in the individual articles on the Rites mentioned. MSJapan (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - article is part of a series. If the content needs to be fixed it should be rather than be deleted. I am not an expert in freemasonry, but it looks like the content could be rearranged for readers interested in a more condensed version of these rites. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @DangerDogWest:: I would add, then, that this progression outline is specialized; it is only possible in Masonic groups that are under English jurisdiction. It does not hold for other systems in other countries, because the degrees in this outline do not exist in those jurisdictions or the conferral method is different. For example, US Scottish Rite Rose Croix is not invitational, and the conferral method is different in the two jurisdictions, and the York Rite portion is separate (as it is in England). More tellingly, the only GHit for this term in this context is this article. MSJapan (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - It's correct that much of the article is an amalgamation of material covered much more extensively in the individual articles on the orders and degrees mentioned. However, since the Consolidated Rite seems to be mainly a specific path through the various Masonic orders and degrees available in England and doesn't have its own ritual, it's hard to add any material on its constituent orders and degrees that isn't already covered elsewhere. The way I see it, the Consolidated Rite is a particular way of grouping certain Masonic orders and degrees that also exist elsewhere (a bit like the York Rite in the US). Just another Masonic degree system (see List of Masonic Rites) of which there are many. ImprovementUK (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - However, it does not appear to be an "official" rite so much as a reference to a certain way of going through. Similarly, much work has been invested in creating a "chronological" list of degrees, but that doesn't affect the conferral in any manner. Moreover, I wasn't able to find any references to this, so that is a big issue with respect to GNG as a standalone article, as well as the specificity of it. MSJapan (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is short on references, and google gives me 82 hits on the rite, mainly from its own site. That's not good, I expect 4 figures from real organisations. If anybody can find a link to UGLE that isn't self-referenced by Consolidated Rite, we're good. Otherwise, no notability, and possibly a bogus organisation. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please read the disclaimer buried in this site. It starts "This site is for informational purposes only. It does not claim to represent a recognised Masonic body in the United Kingdom or elsewhere." It's not a masonic rite or organisation, it's a website. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. It does not really matter whether the subject qualifies as a Masonic "Rite" or not... the important question is whether it is Notable enough (as a topic) for Wikipedia to have a stand-alone article about it. I don't think it is. Both WP:GNG and WP:ORG require that a topic be discussed (in reasonable depth) by reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Such sources simply do not exist. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Blueboar - no independent reliable sources. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent reliable sources, and no other web site links to the reference site. Ahwiv (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Master (order)[edit]

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

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

Unsourced for almost eight years, and unencyclopedic. The article is simply a listing of types of groups that have an officer by this title, and says nothing about the duties of the office (which really aren't explained anywhere, even for well-known groups like the Knights Templar). The utility is therefore very debatable, and is really nothing more than a fluffed-out DICDEF. MSJapan (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - It's not a very good article, there are a lot of groups that use this term and the article does not even begin to cover all of them. Looks like a fork of the Templar articles, but I can't be sure. might need some TNT. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because function is notable. The article needs improvement, but subject is well documented.--Yopie (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being unsourced for eight years is not a reason to delete (WP:NOEFFORT). Nor is being "unencyclopedic" (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC). The subject is notable, a featured article could be written on it. (WP:Deletion is not cleanup) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as know it is notable from experience. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu S Warrier[edit]

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

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

There is hardly any evidence of notability provided for this person. This article does not provide enough good quality references. The blog/website supposedly authored by this person is also not notable. delete per lack of any WP:RS to support notability. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - non-notable, self published sources. DangerDogWest (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Said person is one of the popular author and legal educator. He is an expert in the field of Arbitration Law. The Books authored by him are bestsellers (Rank #93, Ref: http://www.amazon.in/Arbitration-Conciliation-Mediation-Vishnu-Warrier/dp/9351435547/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445833059&sr=1-1&keywords=vishnu+s+warrier). I am of the opinion that, the page shall be retained.

Books and other articles found published have been found true. Said book titles are also published by reputed publishers. Hence, the page may be retained.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.15.72.34 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. no evidence the published material is actually important. No apparent university position; awards are for being a college chess player. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not sure WP:PROF is the right criterion, since he seems to be more of an independent entrepreneur than an academic. But we also don't have evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Don't Delete: Found an interview (Ref: http://superlawyer.in/vishnu-warrier-founding-lex-warrier-cracking-clat-pg-work-miniratna-hll-lifecare/) may be relevant in this context.
• Delete - I couldn't find any references on my own about this person, and the references cited in the articles were from primary or non-independent sources that don't appear to be independent of the subject (such as "About the Author" sections on book selling websites or sites that appear to have direct involvement with the author or his legal services). I'm not seeing any secondary reliable sources required to establish notability per WP:GNG. Also fails WP:AUTHOR. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete: Could find out One more book authored by this person. Ref: http://www.lexisnexis.in/understanding-patent-law.htm I think we should not delete this page
• Delete. Article is all assertion. Can't find any meaningful evidence of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Suit That Fits[edit]

A Suit That Fits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be borderline WP:CORP notability at best. Most of the sources are to industry awards that will need to be discussed for their impact on notability. The rest of the sources have to do with startup (crowd)funding, which I think past AfDs have generally agreed doesn't make a company noteworthy. Brianhe (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage does not look to pass WP:ORGDEPTH and is not significant enough to pass WP:GNG Jbh^Talk 16:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 16:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 16:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 16:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is something interesting about the awards: they are none of them at all significant. This is typical of coi editors trying to add whatever they can possibly find to make an articles on a completely unimpressive business or person look more impressive. Founding stories like this article's " Warren stayed with a family of tailors who made him a fine woolen suit. On returning to the UK, Warren and David met... " are typical also. This appears to be one of a new ring of paid editors. One or two of the articles they wrote are actually notable enough to rewrite, but not this one. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now and draft & userfy later if needed as I'm not seeing much convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Refs are trivial. Szzuk (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After expansion, the consensus, although slim, is keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Scott (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

Hatnote at primary does the trick. See also is lame. Brycehughes (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom and per WP:TWODABS.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a second hatnote at the basename (added) does the trick - the See Also is useful because the pair of names could be confusable. 17:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Brycehughes, JohnBlackburne, PamD, this had a third entry which could have been added, a valid entry per MOS:DABMENTION. This now has three valid entries and a see also, which I don't agree is 'lame' but could be confusing. We are here to make it as easy as possible for readers to find information on any name. We have information on WP on 3 Kelly Scotts and also several Scott Kellys. Nothing to be gained from deletion and pages meet WP:DISAMBIGUATION guidelines. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adding a Kelley and a Kelli makes it an okay dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• changing my !vote to keep due to its expansion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz anderson[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC NottNott talk|contrib 14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was hard to find any extra sources other than those already sourced in the article:^{[8] [9] [10]}, and yes, they're not looking too good. NottNott talk|contrib 16:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I suspect Googlebombing. Moreover being the daughter of a popular person doesn't make you "popular". --—OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The person most interested in defending this article doesn't understand how to do this because I believe they are (somewhat) attempting to do that on their talk page. But they will probably just end up leaving wikipedia. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MurderByDeadcopy: I've attempted to help the user understand this on his/her talk page, but you're totally right - this isn't the best way to introduce someone to editing. NottNott talk|contrib 16:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has got to be the worst welcome to Wikipedia ever. The talk page hadn't even been patrolled yet. No matter what I think about this article doing this comes across as callous. (Unless, of course, there's a blatant issue with an article!) Seems like one should check to see who started the article and at least welcome them to wikipedia before nominating their article to AfD. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MurderByDeadcopy: Noted. My intention was never to scare away the editor - and while patrolling Huggle at a fast speed you can be prone to forget basic etiquette like that. I've taken steps that will hopefully rectify the situation, but this is a fault. NottNott talk|contrib 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Coverage looks to be at best tabloid mentions which I doubt are even WP:RS. Jbh^Talk 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:GNG. I would suggest Userfy, but that would only encourage a new editor to work on an article which has very little chance of acceptance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Krasnyansky[edit]

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

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

The article is an advert, without third-party reliable sources. Though it was claimed in 2008 that Anatole Krasnyansky "is a widely-known and collected artist," there does not seem much to substantiate this. A search on Google gives 217 hits when you go to the last page. Most of these hits are from people trying to sell his artwork. The rest are for a different possibly more-notable artist of the same name who lived 1924-2004. Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you sure that you are referring to two different artists? Because I believe they are the same person and this should be a Speedy Keep. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Un-bold 'speedy keep' editor made a 'keep' !vote below. Jbh^Talk 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to be sure of anything with non-notable artists.

• Anatole Krasnyansky is claimed by "Invaluable" (an auction house) to have been born in 1930 and still be alive.
• Anatole Krasnyansky is claimed by Palm Beach Fine Art to have lived 1924-2004.

The style of art is identical, so it is possible that they are the same person; or that the art galleries have muddled two different artists. I have no idea. But if either of them were notable, there ought to be reliable sources other than companies trying to sell his products. So where is the coverage in reliable sources? Wikipedia:Notability says: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." The subject of the article appears to fail this test. However, if you know different, please provide sources and put them in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is not a single RS pertaining to the subject.Lute88 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I find a lot of passing mentions of his work but nothing about him. I will look in some of my old art books to see if I can find anything on him. None of his works are on WikiArt for whatever that is worth. Jbh^Talk 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. I have a few compendia of Ukrainian painters. There is nothing.Lute88 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they be more likely to listed under Russian and not Ukrainian since they left in 1975? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of the sort either. Moreover, the article had claims of film credits which were credited to entirely different people on IMDB.Lute88 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is IMDB considered to be a reliable source? Moreover your book is Ukrainian painters. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no SOVIET painter by that name either. The cyrillic search produces nothing at all. As to IMD, it is reliable for production credits. The article had patently false claims of AK's film credits.Lute88 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find nothing that passes muster. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Jbh^Talk 18:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this a mix-up with a dad/son? Is one the surreal painter and the other one a scenic artist? Someone made a book of their work and gave that to the Hermitage. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope. There is only one, and a search in Ukrainian brings nothing at all - [8]

Same in Russian - [9]

Lute88 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Toddy1: Just wondering: why was it me who was notified of the article's being nominated for deletion? My only edit to the page was nominating it for speedy deletion, and that was more than seven years ago. I didn't create the page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the first two people to make edits to the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Krasnyansky is listed in the book, Ukrainian Art: Shevchenko National Prize[10]. He was featured with Chagall[11]. In an art fraud case, his name gets mentioned along with Dali, Rembrandt, Erte, and Max.[12] Also, his serigraphs are valued super high ($2,350)[13] for a "nobody"! Also, another one for $10,000[14], a write up in the Malibu Chronicle [15] AND the is no one named Anatole Kranyansky with the birth date of 1924-2008. That info is a false lead to this AfD. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 09:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding it's high for a serigraph, ie a mass limited edition silkscreen print. And Lute88 appears to only have some issue with him because Krasnyansky is being classified as Ukrainian. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Secondly - the Barneby is an ESTIMATE, not a record of sale for that price. And there is no indication the item has ever had a bidder.--Lute88 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the proper characterization of Lute88's "issue" is "There is not a single RS pertaining to the subject.". Trying to discount another editor's opinion on nationalist grounds is more than a bit distasteful and you should consider striking that accusation. There is no need for comments like that here. Jbh^Talk 18:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I pointed that out for full transparency. And, to be fair, they are not the only ones here with that bias. I'm already aware of exactly what you are going to with this article, right or wrong! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any bias here, and your inference thereof is insulting.Lute88 (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- He is not featured in that book. He is listed in keywords that contain a lot of people and entities that are not the recipients of the prize.Lute88 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And he is not on the list of recipients - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shevchenko_National_Prize_laureates. And you missed this tidbit: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online.")))Lute88 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Lute88 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The source you site to say he is " mentioned along with Dali, Rembrandt, Erte, and Max." says simply "two by Ukrainian-American artist Anatole Krasnyansky" which means nothing. Where and how is he mentioned in Ukrainian Art: Shevchenko National Prize the only thing that link says is the two words of his name exist somewhere in that book, no context and not even necessarily occurring together. I do not know where you get "featured with Chagall" from, the book you link is a gallery index. These arguments are even weaker than WP:NOTINHERITED maybe WP:NOTMENTIONEDINTHESAMESENTENCE. Also $2,230 is not "super high" it is 'peanuts' if you are trying to claim he is anywhere near Dali, Rembrandt, Erte, Max and Chagall. I am rather impressed in how you framed a 'passing mention' in one article and two Google Books returns, without any text, to make this guy seem to be a 'great artist' but he is not. If he were there would be something on him somewhere. Imaginative framing does not demonstrate notability.

I have collapsed the super long url's above by enclosing them in '[]'. Jbh^Talk 15:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "book" is wiki-derived.Lute88 (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citogenesis. Jbh^Talk 15:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, Jbhunley, ironic that the editors of that article choose to use three refs and a wikilink to "prove" that Randall Munroe coined the term "citogenesis". Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 21:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 17:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub - Highbeam.com lists six articles about Krasnyansky. The article is poorly written but we can fix it using paywalled references. The Wikipedia Library is going to open up a few more paywalls for me within the next couple of weeks. It is premature to delete this article without doing WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE first. These are POLICIES that are NOT optional. JSTOR.com has nothing. Roll up your sleeves, apply for some paywall databases and start recovering articles instead of deleting them. Put this one on the back burner until then, or withdraw the deletion nomination as should be. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 21:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the articles listed on highbeam.com three are about a case of fraud and theft involving his paintings. One is advertising an auction. Another is about someone buying at a sale of art. I am not sure what the one from the Rocky Mountain News is about. None of them are about Anatole Krasnyansky.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Checkingfax: You did notice that of those six Highbeam hits three only said two of his paintings were part of a fraud case and nothing more, one says a piece was "valued at $2,350" and nothing more, one is a one line comment from someone who bought a painting at an auction and one says "Two of his favorite pieces of art are colorful, surrealistic paintings by Anatole Krasnyansky, a Russian artist who lives in the United States." [16] and nothing more. Right? Nothing more than four passing mentions in six articles. I would suggest you do a BEFORE that consists of more than counting 'hits' before you scold others about their research. Just say'n. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 21:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The flow is: notice article >>> try to fix it >>> if unfixable then nominate for deletion. Starting with AfD and then trying to fix it is against POLICY. We are supposed to reference POLICY only in our discussions here.

Now that the article is improperly in the AfD queue it puts an unreasonable deadline on trying to fix the article. I need about three weeks to try to bring this article up to better standards. In the meantime, I suggest all editors get over to TWL and apply for some paywall database access codes, and that the nominating editor withdraw this nomination. The fact that artists could counterfeit his work and make money suggests he is a notable artist in the league of the other few artists that were also copied. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 22:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base your claim that artists counterfeited his work? In the fraud case, someone claimed that the paintings were stolen and then tried to sell them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, EBSCO, and ProQuest turned up only brief mentions in the routine course of business (e.g. "Also included in the auction will be works by Anatole Krasnyansky"). Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources has not been found, so does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC. No objection to draftify/userfication if Checkingfax thinks they can rescue the topic, but it's been tagged for notability off and on ever since it was created in 2008 (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jul 2#Park West Gallery: our article vs. The New York Times.27 makes interesting reading); so far no one has found the requisite sources. Worldbruce (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Giamani[edit]

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

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

Requested by subject of article Amortias (T)(C) 13:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is borderline at best. If the subject wants this article deleted, let's defer to the subject's wishes. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I see nothing better here. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. "Best Web Performer: is a bottom-tier, insignificant award; like webcomics and self-published books, more is required than notoriety internal to that insular field. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constance M. Rockosi[edit]

Constance M. Rockosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. She is only doing her job. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear case of nominator failing to do WP:BEFORE. Why would you have nominated this within hours of creation without doing a modicum of checking on notability? Noted scientist, one of the heads of The Sloan Digital Sky Survey [17] who has been cited as an expert numerous times by others in her field. [18], with a string of publications [19] and she is "chair" of her department [20]. Not only does she meet ACADEMIC she clearly meets GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Nomination withdrawn I withdraw my nomination to Keep per sources provided by SusunW (talk · contribs). The second source provided is a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#1. Trout slap to me! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:45, 31 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. Nom withdrawn and no other deletion opinions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence (2015 video game)[edit]

Prominence (2015 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. An upcoming science fiction point and click adventure game with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Keep Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. Zeneater (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]