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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. A. D. A Perera[edit]

J. A. D. A Perera (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 minor government official, the only references provided mention him in passing - there is nothing that substantiates his notability. Has been tagged for improvement since August 2015 with no changes. Dan arndt (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 23:33, 17 September 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 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see no better improvement here and the best search results I found were these links. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria. -- Chamith (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He is a civil servant in the Customs department. His position is not even the head of the department, not that being the head of the department denotes notability. The referencing in the article (aside from a dead link I cannot access) are all passing mentions and do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updata Partners[edit]

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

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

Seems like a prime candidate for speedy deletion, though another editor has already opposed a PROD attempt, so clearly there is some opposing view. Article is cited only to the company website and I can't see any evidence online of reliable, independent coverage that would meet WP:NCORP (Company seems to be a behind-the-scenes investor so perhaps isn't very visible or interesting to the general media). Appears to be written by a single issue editor, maybe with a promotional intent? Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unfortunately. The companies in its portfolio are covered all over the place, but I can't find any specific coverage of Updata to save this one. Alaynestone (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply not enough with Books finding listings and News links. Pinging past editors RA0808, Stuartyeates and Iridescent for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I said in my PROD Non-notable company. No independent refs with in depth coverage.. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with the above info. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability does not seem to have materialized, and still seems to be more about promotion than information. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 20:37, 20 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women’s Fund of Long Island[edit]

Women’s Fund of Long Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

My searches found nothing than the following results here, here, here, here and here, to suggest better improvement from its current especially unacceptable version. If it hadn't been that I found minimal results, I would've simply PRODed or speedied (much like JVA Artists, Inc. which I encountered earlier) and this has obviously been. edited by the subjects since starting in August 2007 (initially started by SPA) and there's simply no obvious signs of improvement. Pinging tagger Ukexpat. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ORG ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While worthy, this tiny, local group has a budget of $20,000 annually for grants. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 21 September 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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Meyer[edit]

Amy Meyer (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)

Judoka with no significant coverage and a world ranking of 75th. Winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games is not enough to show notability. Continental gold medal winners have been deleted as non-notable.Jakejr (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on the basis winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games is a very significant achievement. WP:NSPORT is clear that "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" (for example athletes pass WP:NSPORT if they come in the top 8 of a Commonwealth games event). In addition to the news article already cited, [1] and [2] were easy to find. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting the notability criteria for track and field, not judo. The Commonwealth Games is not the highest level, apparent if winning a medal produces a rank of 75. Highest level generally considered to be Olympics or good performance at world championships.Jakejr (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why of a ranking of 75th in the world implies non-notability. StAnselm (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons. 75 judoka times 14 divisions times 12 ratings a year equals a lot of possibly notable judoka. More importantly, a ranking that low indicates a lack of success at major competitions. There was a reason she didn't qualify for the world championships which had 40 in her division. If you're not among the top 40 I would question how notable you really are. We wouldn't say the 75th place finisher in the 100m at the world athletic championships was notable.Jakejr (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we would - because just competing in the championships would make you notable. (In the 2013 World Championships, there were, in fact, exactly 75 competitors.) Or to take another example, there are always 128 competitors in the main singles draw of a tennis grand slam. And we say they are notable simply for being there. (OK, technically we don't say that, but we presume notability for all who make it.) StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games is notable.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Commonwealth Games medal winners should always be kept. The track and field theshhold is lower, of course - top eight rather than top three. The other CG sports explicitly mentioned at WP:NSPORT are Badminton, which uses top eight as well, and gymnastics and triathlon, which both use top three. It is clear that the presumption of notability for CG medallists is in the spirit of the notability guidelines. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MANOTE would support that if she had multiple medals, but not one.Jakejr (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very old essay indeed that you're quoting! WP:NSPORT would be more in keeping with current standards. Sionk (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I don't find any judo criteria on Wikipedia and the only martial arts criteria is mixed martial arts, which does not seem to be the same thing. However, she also won a bronze medal in 2013 at a World Cup Event in Samoa [3] and this article about it seems to indicate that she had also done it the previous year. SusunW (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added a little more to her article, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:28, 22 September 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) 00:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Spears[edit]

Harry Spears (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)

Artist stub on a Canadian printmaker. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cannot find a single decent ref. His practice is pre-Internet, so if someone has an idea or knowledge about his work, let's hear it. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure because this is something that almost all sourcing would not be online and my searches found nothing so I'll have to say delete for now until this can be better. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSwisterTwister, I agree about sources likely being pre-internet. However given some notability, or being included in someone's museum collection would yield an entry in this amazing searchable index of Canadian Artists that is backed by the National Gallery of Canada. They have indexed collections information and publicity files etc. for 56,000 Canadian artists, going back quite a ways. Nothing comes up for him.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now in agreement with SwisterTwister. Theredproject (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I just checked three databases which have Canadian newspaper coverage all the way back into the 1800s, and found exactly zilch. So nope, the notability's just not there. Furthermore, this is written like the kind of advertorial thing ("list of auction sales", my ass) that wouldn't be allowed to stay in this format even if it were properly sourced. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Commentyou know, I think this could be an art dealer scam (those happen a lot) where the dealer gets a hold of an old insignificant work, and in order to pump up the price he says "hey, look, the artist has a Wikipedia page" to the clients.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah...that sounds completely plausible, and that would explain the "list of auction sales" part better than any other explanation I was able to to come up with for it. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I would expect a notable Canadian artist, even pre-internet to show in art catalogues and databases; this guy seems to be mostly invisible. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 23 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aristote Quitusisa[edit]

Aristote Quitusisa (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)

Kickboxer who doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:KICK. The WKA title is not enough to show notability. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. According to WP:KICK WKA has stopped being notable in 2000.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as although News and browser instantly found results, I'm not entirely sure if he's notable especially independently. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Political hack. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hack gap[edit]

Hack gap (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)

Judging from the article, this seems to be a phrase used maybe twice, once each by two people. No evidence of notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too difficult for you to click on the links above and see for yourself what the usage of the phrase is? — goethean 21:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the article's sources. There is one article in which the phrase "hack deficit" (not "hack gap") appears, and another article that quotes the first article. That's it. No basis for a WP article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure as I'm not convinced enough to fully state and I found results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Political hack. The "Hack" in "Hack gap" looks to refer to "political hack". Whether there are 2 or 20 sources, as long as it's based on that other neologism, I think it makes the most sense to mention it there. Can always spin it off later if the article grows considerably, but I don't see that happening any time soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Political hack. I agree with Rhododendrites. We don't need a separate article for every spin-off term based off of a neologism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all of the above; violates WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 21 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaypee Integrated Sports Complex[edit]

Jaypee Integrated Sports Complex (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)

Sports facility with no significant independent coverage.Jakejr (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete simply because there's not even minimally good coverage although News, Books and highbeam all found results here and there. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a mere listing of various places that may be nice to visit. We are not a travel agency. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:28, 24 September 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 speedied as G7 (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dark conscience[edit]

A dark conscience (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)

PROD removed without comment or improvement. original concern was: No evidence of meeting notability (films) guidelines or general notability guideline. Even if this article weren't created by the director (User:Scout Collins), I find no evidence that this article is anything less than undue promotion of a film that has received no significant attention. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

• Delete per currently failing WP:NFF. After I fixed up its format some, and though a nomination of a brand new article is often considered WP:BITEY, I found that new editor Scout Collins appears to be the filmmaker herself, so we have issues with WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:COI, else a userfication might have been a consideration. She really needs to read WP:Wikipedia is not about YOU. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's not even minimally good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A duplicate of this article has just been created at A Dark Conscience (Film). --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now, the article creator has blanked the article and requested its speedy deletion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:55, 20 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CLG Cill Chomáin[edit]

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

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

This article covers a football club without giving any reason for considering it to be notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as News, Books and browser instantly found results but I'm not sure if they're enough to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable Irish football club. Quis separabit? 18:33, 24 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishara Khader[edit]

Bishara Khader (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 professor. I don't see anything that indicates that he is a distinguished or significant professor at his university. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, whether by impactful publications, awards, or anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Likely delete as although News, Books and Scholar instantly found results, I'm not sure if there's worthwhile better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article doesn't appear to demonstrate notability. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:53, 22 September 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 as the article is acceptable now. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SS Hewitt[edit]

SS Hewitt (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 simply found nothing to suggest better improvement (my searches found nothing better than this which seems like a mirror) and this must obviously be caused by not much information known although I am still a bit curious to know if this actually existed (still questionable?). Pinging Calamondin12. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a hoax. The ship's disappearance is documented in reliable sources (one of which I have just added to the references), but the article can be improved further. Calamondin12 (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article still in need of improvement, but that's not a reason to delete it. Vessel proven to have existed by RSs. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 September 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 as there is no consensus to delete this. The nominator advocated redirection and so, per WP:SK, WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, this discussion should not have been started, let alone relisted and reviewed. Andrew D. (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedbird[edit]

Speedbird (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 cannot see how this is independently notable from British Airways. This would fail WP:GNG. Redirecting this to British Airways would be a viable option. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as to term and delete article. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to British Airways. "Speedbird" is the radio telephony callsign for British Airways. Such callsigns are not notable. Reading the article, I find the other uses of the term "Speedbird" as mildly interesting trivia, but nothing else. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I favor retention of this article and commented to taht effecton teh article's Talk page. "Speedbird" is again in teh news in connection with teh September 2015 incident at the Las Vegas airport. As the article explains, "speedbird" is not only a call sign but the name of a logo. The logo itself is notable because long in use and connected with an internationally important company; definitely not trivia. Editors interested in art (especially commercial art and graphic design) should be consulted. If this article is not retained, then as a fallback I favor moving the material elsewhere, as suggested above.Alfredwillis (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, I always wondered what this was when I would hear it on air traffic control. It's interesting to hear the explanation in the article. If you heard the ATC radio recording for the 777 in Vegas that caught fire this week, you heard "speedbird". If you had wondered what it meant, this article would have told you. It's a phrase that is used thousands of times a day on ATC radio. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The speedbird logo is an important icon in the history of 20th century graphic design and the development of the corporate logo. See for example here. This article will never be long but it needs to be kept separate from the main Imperial Airways, BOAC or British Airways articles. Some of the post-speedbird trivia needs trimming, but that is a different issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] I have now refactored the article to bring out the design aspect of the Speedbird and play down the airline side-issues, and begun the work of adding cites to demonstrate its notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Speedbird is independent of BA insofar as it predates BA by about four decades. Article gives useful info re its creation, and continued uses as BAs callsign. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why relist, why not just close properly? WP:CONSENSUS is about more than just numbers, you need to think it through too. The first few, redirect votes were made with no knowledge of the logo's status as a design icon. Since that was made clear, every vote has been to keep it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There was history way before BA so personally I think redirecting is pointless, IMHO it is notable for a standalone article, I admit it does need improving but notability's certainly there. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep borne by several companies and therefore notable independently of them. Artw (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as indicated, the word existed prior to British Airways. And, given the relatively low cost of storage, what's the actual upside of deleting it? It isn't creating clutter or problems, and it stands as a useful - if short - article. Given its daily use in aviation and its historic significance, it doesn't seem to qualify for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.205.61.206 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Tang[edit]

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

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

Not a notable artist. Look through the history if you like and you'll find this article was much pruned by New Media Theorist and others, but the previous version has only more fluff, much of which promotional URLs for Island6. This appears to be part of a walled garden involving Island6, discussion of which is currently at WP:COIN. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete glad to see this here as I was about to propose it myself. As the article says, this is a fictional character/artistic persona of Thomas Charveriat. I Deleted about 50% of the article on the basis that the invented, uncited text is fiction, aka original research. What's left is minimal, and part of the possible walled garden at at this WP:COIN discussion. At most I think this fictional character persona could be covered by a sentence or two at Thomas Charveriat or Island6, depending on which of those pages survive ongoing AFD and WP:Coin discussions. Reference search turns up nothing significant. New Media Theorist (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The COIN discussion (from some time in the nearish future, presumably moved here) is fascinating, even by WP:COIN standards. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Plain and simple...simply delete as there has been no better improvement since starting in April 2010 and my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or possibly redirect to Island6), as argued above. -- Hoary (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article reads as of it is a meta-performance art piece itself. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Vrac (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is this WP:SNOW?New Media Theorist (talk) 15:05, 24 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Downey III[edit]

John Downey III (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 an actor which makes no strong claim of notability under WP:NACTOR, and rests entirely on primary and unreliable sources (his own website, his own LinkedIn profile, YouTube videos and IMDb) with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown. Also a conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the "née" in the introduction. As always, a Wikipedia article is not a thing that any actor is automatically entitled to have just because he exists; it's a thing that an actor earns by being the subject of enough reliable source coverage to verify that he passes a specific Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as there's simply no better improvement and I only found brief mentions at Books with there also being no move target. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Producers' and local performing artists' articles are almost always deleted, even if they have an IMDB page. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 21 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fields (band)[edit]

Fields (band) (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)

At best, the only thing that could save this article is that they were signed to Atlantic Records as, apart from that, my searches found no outstandingly good coverage here, here, here and here. They never seem to have made more of a noticeable impact aside from when they started and they're no further coverage after that and, if also found non-notable, I'll nominate the albums as well. Pinging the only still active user from the first AfD, Lankiveil and past editor Acabashi. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with SwisterTwister. The article has not added anything significant, or references (it's been given enough time), since its reinstatement after a deletion discussion (here), on 6 February 2007 (why did it come back?). 'One-hit-wonder' bands usually deserve a page on Wikipedia... 'One-obscure-album' bands usually not. If the band is not notable then, per SwisterTwister, the album and EP would not be either.

Even if there is a decision that the band is notable, the article should then be reduced to a few-lines' stub, including the removal of non-notables per WP:LISTPEOPLE, notability not rubbing off. Removing waffle down to acceptable essentials, if this is indeed enough for an article, it could stub in entirety as:

Fields were a 2006 to 2009 London-based Anglo-Icelandic electronic/indie band. They released their only album, Everything Last Winter, and EP 4 from the Village, through Atlantic Records' label Black Lab Records.^{[citation needed]} The album was produced by Michael Beinhorn at Sun Studios, Dublin.^{[citation needed]} Acabashi (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Below is some of the reviews/coverage available. Note that it's from multiple countries. Some are just capsule reviews but there is a lot of them. See also the reviews listed at Everything Last Winter along with this other allmusic review. (the allmusic credits and bio both verify production by Beinhorn) The New York Daily News (Farber, Jim (6 March 2007), "BRITS ARE COMING AGAIN. A new invasion of U.K. musicians is making big waves", New York Daily News) has a little but they call the band The Field. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelton, Sam (27 September 2007), "Fields", The Advertiser

Gould, Nigel (20 April 2007), "Fields", Belfast Telegraph

Yeow Kai Chai (25 May 2007), "Rufus at his luxe best", Straits Times

Coleman, Andy (20 April 2007), "Shining in the darkness", Birmingham Mail

Verrico, Lisa (17 April 2007), "Fields;Pop;Music;Reviews;First night", The Times

Fulton, Rick (30 March 2007), "Album of the week", Scottish Daily Record

• Keep. I'm baffled by this as I found plenty of decent coverage: BBC, Allmusic, Pitchfork, Hot Press, SPIN, Gigwise.com, New Zealand Herald, Prefix, CLASH, AV Club, Rolling Stone, PopMatters, FADER, a whole chapter in Jeff Touzeau's book Artists on Recording Techniques, and SPIN again. Their album was also reviewed in Q (listed at Metacritic). --Michig (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The sources provided by Michig definitely clinch this for me; RollingStone, BBC, and AllMusic all have fairly substantial coverage. I'm not sure how these did not turn up in the initial search, but regardless, they clear the notability threshold by a wide margin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 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) 00:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire[edit]

Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire (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 has had multiple tags for 5 years and has not been seriously edited in the same time. This is an unnecessary content fork: the relevant information is better covered in the individual constituency articles. I note this article was considered along side many others in a previous AfD that ended with a keep decision, but was of a rather different nature to the others considered and the decision then did not really consider its own merits, or lack thereof, so I haven't labelled this a second nomination. Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems rather arbitrary as Hertfordshire is not a constituency. Number 57 17:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Failed candidates are generally NN. However the redlinks are an invite to create an article. We have plenty of material on sitting and past MPs to which this adds nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; not particularly helpful. If you want to look up failed candidacies, you'll look by the name of the constituency, not by the ceremonial county. Also, this isn't very helpful because it provides information only about an extremely short period of time. Where's information about sixteen-century elections, for example? Surely Hertfordshire sent a couple of knights to Simon de Montfort's Parliament? Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 23 September 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 closed as an invalid deletion rationale. We do not delete articles just for being stubs. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borki, Żuromin County[edit]

Borki, Żuromin County (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)

its a stub Magicsan (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not delete articles just for being stubs; if the thing qualifies under one of our inclusion guidelines — such as the one for geographic places, under which all places that can be verified as existing are always valid potential article topics with no exceptions — then we just flag it as a stub and do not delete it just for not being better than it is. I'm speedy closing this as an invalid deletion rationale. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place exists in real life, and will continue to do so for some time, maybe centuries. Zezen (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  13:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Laborde[edit]

Thierry Laborde (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)

My searches found nothing to suggest better improvement with the following being the best results, here, here, here and here. If you look at the history, you'll notice there was once more content but also unsourced and I suspect this has been edited by people close to him which is not a serious violation as long it's sourced and such...and this is not and there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a Michelin starred chef, then there's this, this, this, this, this, this etc..... Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This was one of the closest I've looked at. I almost wanted to keep it based on WP:BASIC, but I don't think he quite gets over that hump. I think most of the cites provided by Kraxler are promotional. The fact that there is another person by this same name (the CEO of BNP Paribas Personal Finance) who gets a fair bit of press made researching a bit difficult. But for now I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow your reasoning. What is promotional about articles in the Financial Times or the London Evening Standard? Kraxler (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hemberga brunn[edit]

Hemberga brunn (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)

Granted it's a foreign company and from the past century so sources may not be easily accessible but my searches found nothing therefore unless good sources are found, there's not much here. Notifying author Liftarn. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the company's own site at http://www.hembergabrunn.se/ but that is not enough. Some other info can be found at http://www.ratebeer.com/brewers/hemberga-brunn-brunnen-bryggeri/20472/ and http://www.allabolag.se/what/Hemberga_Brunn and http://www.orebroguiden.com/arkiv/68706 // Liftarn (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately. I added a few references but the two of them are press releases and two of them simply confirms that the company was named after a local mineral spa. I can't really find anything else besides directory listings. I'd be willing to change my !vote if somebody can come up with something better. You should think that a company almost 70 years old has had something written about them. Maybe it's another case of sources not being digitized yet. Does someone have Atext or similar access? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found http://www.bygdeband.se/wp-content/uploads/uploaded/237/136761_nyupptackt_radiumkalla_1.pdf that is a 1926 article about Hemberga Brunn. It appears it was started after they discovered that the water was radioactive. Perhaps not something they want to stress today, but the brochure at http://www.bygdeband.se/wp-content/uploads/uploaded/237/136760_hemberga_brunn.pdf does. // Liftarn (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, two of the sources I added also mentioned the radioactivity of the spring. Those things appear to have been popular in the first part of the 20th Century. The two sources you list here would be useful for an Hemberga Spring article, but they do not say anything about the company I'm afraid. Best, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim of notability in the article, a run-of-the-mill beverage distributor, web search turns up press releases, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 15:38, 24 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edvin Kanka Ćudić[edit]

Edvin Kanka Ćudić (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)

Crosswiki created POV BLP of non notable person. No sources to indicate notability. Knud Winckelmann (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Whether or not the human rights group that this person is connected to is notable or not is one thing. But it looks like notability for him, as an individual, isn't really there. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cnnot find sources to validate notability. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)d[reply]
• Delete for now as I found no better sourcing than News links. Notifying first AfDs commenters Safiel, Whpq, Milowent and Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete references are either dead or have no mention of the person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yes, I voted delete in the last AfD. Look like an unwarranted recreation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:59, 20 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nazo Dharejo[edit]

Nazo Dharejo (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:NPOL. Has not been elected to any office. Need more independent sources for establishing notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AKS I have provided the newspapers refernces for Nazo Dharejo , so go through those references and find news about Nazo dharejo, there are required references so the article should not be deleted. Jogi 007 (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to admit right off the top that this is a very badly written article in need of a major quality overhaul — but it does make a notability claim that's tied in some way to the Sindh Assembly. Given the bad quality of writing, I'm not at all clear on whether she sits in that body, or was merely a candidate for a seat that she didn't actually get elected or appointed to — clarifying that properly would be the pivotal difference between a keep or a delete here. Keep and flag for cleanup if she can be properly confirmed as having held a seat in the Sindh Assembly — but delete if she was just an unsuccessful candidate, as the article makes no other genuinely substantive claim of notability for anything else besides that. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article is terribly written, but if I'm reading this reference correctly, she was selected to a reserved seat in the National Assembly. A quick search for additional sources got this profile in The Express Tribune. There is something to this person. GNG? Not there yet. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading it wrong. She was selected as a proposed candidate by the PML-N political party in 2013. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This source talks only about candidature. No record of her ever being elected. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as she fails WP:Politician, she was not elected, see list of those elected for the Fourteenth Assembly of the Sindh Assembly from the Pakistan Muslim League (N), aka PML-N, here. Note that in the Sindh Assembly the PML (N) is a small minoroity party, as opposed to its country-wide status. In any event, the article is too soon, since she has no significant coverage aside from the one profile in the Express-Tribune, basically the rest are just mentions. The article also appears to contain original research. Note: Sorath Thebo (profile) holds the only reserved seat for women for the PML-N in the Sindh Assembly. See also the June 2013 PML-N list of members in the Sindh Assembly. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. No demonstration that WP:NPOL has been met. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL, unelected candidate with only routine campaign coverage Kraxler (talk) 15:48, 24 September 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. Minimal debate even after two relists, so calling this a soft delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Bazzi[edit]

Carlo Bazzi (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)

Apparently non-notable glass manufacturer, does not meet GNG or any other criterion. Note: the article previously contained more material, some of it unsourced, some of it entirely spurious, which I have removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I discuss in such pages, so I apologize for any mistake I will commit; in it.wiki italian painters notability is my main occupation, so I hope I can help. The article is totally wrong, not only because there's no content and only bibliography, but also because the bibliography itself it's wrong:

• Carlo Pirovano, La Pittura in Italia: Il Novecento, Vol. 2;
• Raffaele De Grada, Il Novocento a Palazzo Isimbardi;
• Paola Slavich, Ospedale maggiore/Cà granda: Ritratti moderni

Noone of these three books really talks about Carlo Bazzi (except for three insignificant quotes as "friend of", "pupil of"), so it's very misleading to consider them "further readings".

I was trying to know if it was possible to write this article in it.wiki, but the only notable thing I found on my books is that six Bazzi's paintings are owned by Banca Commerciale Italiana, which owns a good collection of art (source: this book, p. 193). I don't know how notable you can consider this thing here in en.wiki, but Carlo Bazzi in it.wiki probably would be considered very borderline. Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 17:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It looks like this individual only picked up a small amount of notability with his work, and I feel like in the spirit of the rules (beyond just the mere words) this should probably be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:04, 25 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Ambient[edit]

Arctic Ambient (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-solved issues after months of addition UnhappyRadio (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, this genre was invented by a person, and the page was created to be used as a source to make it more credible. The term has been used scarcely to describe a single artist.UnhappyRadio (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found nothing good to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Straightforward delete. I have listed the issues with this article on the talk page. The submitter had many months to improve the article, remove original research, add reliable sources. There has been no effort to do so. The notability of the genre and neutrality of the article are highly questionable as well. Google search does not provide anything more reliable than the current "sources". This article should be removed asap. MiklakRYM (talk) 12:35, 18 September 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner Publications[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only reference is self-published. ubiquity (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as you've would've at least expected better coverage but there's isn't any but this isn't actually entirely surprising as publishers publish but coverage about them isn't always. My searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence found of WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Note there appears to be an identically named company from Texas that advertised in Popular Science magazine, but that doesn't affect the lack of notability for this Southern California company. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Though nobody opposes a redirect, so you might want to try that as an editorial action.  Sandstein  13:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Alger[edit]

Chad Alger (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)

Speedy deletion declined: notability review required. Slashme (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Complicated Animals as he may be best known for that and I hope someone simply won't remove this and restore it without considering why this is taking place; my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 10 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Anthony[edit]

Griffin Anthony (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)

Musician BLP that appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Article likely started as an autobiography--note article creator username "Occh27" and subject's real last name Occhigrossi. Large list of references, but these are almost entirely press releases, blog posts and passing mentions. Article creator and all other substantial contributors of content have few or no other edits other than to this article. I found no other coverage in reliable sources to support notability. --Finngall ^talk 18:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and draft to AFC for now as although the article would first appear acceptable, the sourcing could be better and my searches found nothing good but this may be become better later so saving it would help. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. As for the AfC suggestion, I vehemently oppose it, given it would benefit nobody. The subject is non-notable and will most likely remain so for the next 6 months, which is how long AfC drafts last before being nominated for deletion. Notability is determined by coverage, not by time. If he becomes notable then we can reconsider undeleting the article, but there is no use in adding another hopeless draft to the thousands already waiting for deletion in AfC's endless rejected categories. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:46, 20 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People on the March[edit]

People on the March (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)

My searches simply found nothing (I'm a Spanish speaker so I would've known what sources were relevant) and for this article to stay unsourced and the same since May 2005 is not a good sign. It appears there's no Spanish Wiki article and, granted this from Peru and before the Internet so sources may not be easily accessible but this still needs attention. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notability, no sources, very small political party. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing to assert notability per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Given the lack of significance for this organization, it's best described as a section in some other page somewhere. It doesn't merit its own article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Belleza San Luis Potosí[edit]

Nuestra Belleza San Luis Potosí (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)

local preliminary round for a national pageant. Fails WP:GNG and unsourced. The Banner talk 21:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (changed from Delete) non-notable local pageant, WP:FANCRUFT Kraxler (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Keep Although the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants doesn't have explicit guidelines for notability, its mission statement tells us that they are looking to create articles covering state, national and international pageants. And San Luis Potosi is a state of Mexico. The real issue is whether the list can ever be reliably sourced. I don't know, but here's something to consider -- at some point in the past, someone started a series of articles on the annual pageants. There were only three -- 2010, 2011, and 2012 -- and not all of them were sourced. But at least one was. I'll be happy to add those sources to the instant article. But beyond that, I'll defer to the folks at the WikiProject. The project page has a section alerting its members to articles that are up for deletion and so, if anyone there really cares about this article, they can come on over and start filling in the other sources. And if not, we can revisit the question of deletion. By the way, it's those three annual articles that really seem non-notable. In the near future, I'll be proposing them for deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Of the three articles on the annual pageants, only one was reliably sourced; the other two had (i) a dead link and (ii) somebody's blog. I've added the one useful link to the instant article, as well as a 'citations-needed' box at the top of the page. I also went to the article on the national pageant and, from there, randomly looked at three of the annual articles for the 1990s. Not a one of them was reliably sourced. Frankly, if the folks at WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants can't be bothered to reliably source the national pageant, it seems unlikely that they will ever get around to fixing the state-level pageants. I'll keep my vote as "Wait", but I can see changing that to "Delete" if the question comes up again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dozen state pageants have been dleted lately, because there was no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. (aka failed GNG) and there's also WP:GEOSCOPE. Kraxler (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Your citing of WP:GeoScope gave me pause to think and, as I was thinking, it occurred to me that this same argument could be used against any of the state-level pageants in the Miss America or Miss USA competitions. So I checked several of the pages for those state-level pageants and found that some of them are in as bad shape, source-wise, as the instant article. Others did have a good deal more sourcing, but only from local newspapers. So, if your arguments are good enough to delete the instant article, they ought to be good enough to delete a goodly number of Miss America and Miss USA articles. And yet, those articles continue to exist. I'm aware that 'other stuff exists' is not a compelling counter-argument, but I'm not pointing to any random collection of 'other stuff' -- I'm pointing to a series of articles that are directly comparable to the instant article. It also bears noting that, earlier this year, someone nominated Miss_South_Dakota for deletion on essentially the same grounds being proposed here. The consensus there was to keep. So, the appropriate outcome here also is to keep. To do otherwise would have us subjecting the Mexican state-level pageants to a tougher standard than we apply to the US state-level pageants. And I'm just not comfortable with doing that.

I'm new here to Wikipedia and when I posted my first comment, I wasn't aware that these nominations had an expiration date. I see now that "Wait" is not a proper position and I've changed it to "Keep". NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proper course is to look for additional sources for this article, and nominate the badly sourced US states' pageants for deletion. We can not argue that because something else is wrong we should do it the wrong way here too. Caution, metaphor follows Try to tell a police officer who stops you for passing a red light that you have seen others doing it too, and that he can fine you only if he fines all other traffic violators also. We both know what the officer's answer will be. That's the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF.Metaphor ends here Kraxler (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we are in the situation of agreeing on the nature of the problem, but disagreeing on how to solve it. Before I address that point, I'll address your metaphor. It's a good metaphor, in that it succinctly describes why WP:OTHERSTUFF needs to be a guiding principle. But in the instant case, you and I have played no significant role in the development of this article (my only contributions were the small edits I described above). So, in your metaphor, you and I are playing the role of the police officer, not the driver. You want to give the driver a ticket, and I'm pointing out that the last time somebody tried to give a driver a ticket for the very same thing, the court found them 'not guilty'. And forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but your metaphor fails on another level -- running a red light can get somebody killed, but keeping an article on a beauty pageant ... .

You and I have been debating the issue of under-sourcing. Although I'm new to Wikipedia, I've seen enough to suspect that under-sourcing is very rarely sufficient grounds for deletion. You need to make the stronger argument that the reason the article is under-sourced is because proper sources simply don't exist. But San Luis Potosi (the state) has a population of about three million and San Luis Potosi (the metropolitan area) has a population of about one million. The city has newspapers and those newspapers almost certainly covered the pageants. To satisfy myself on this point, I did some on-line checking. I found that El Sol de San Luis has an on-line archive and that this archive includes articles on the pageant. Indeed, I saw enough to convince myself that a Spanish-speaking editor could do on-line sourcing for this article going back at least as far as 2008, and could probably get that done within a half hour. So, the sources do exist. The problem here, as I noted in my first post, is that the good folks at the BeautyPageant Project are probably never going to get around to doing the work. Is that a good enough reason to delete? I presume you would say "yes". Me, I'm not so sure. In a few days, an administrator will come ambling by and we'll see what he or she thinks. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being new here, I suggest you read WP:NEVENT, especially the section WP:GEOSCOPE. Coverage in local newspapers usually is not deemed sufficient to establish notability of an event. And, to show that there are indeed sources that cover the event, in any nespaper, please post a link here. It's not enough to say that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, it's necessary to show them. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. But rather than post those links here, I found it more efficient to simply add them to the subject article. That had the benefit of giving me some experience with the news-article citation template. And there is the additional benefit of demonstrating to the closing administrator that the subject article is indeed as well-sourced as the Miss_South_Dakota article.

I also followed your suggestion for re-reading WP:NEVENT. A closer reading shows that the guideline is not clear as to its scope of application. The 'events' discussed there include crimes, accidents and weather-related events, none of which seem to be quite on-point with the discussion here. But what you and I might think of that is not really the point. The very existence of more than 100 articles on state-level US pageants suggests that the Wikipedia community has already decided that WP:NEVENT does not apply here.

Thanks again for your advice. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the sources to the article is as good as showing them here. The closing admin will consider them. The NEVENT guideline applies to all events, without restrictions, those expressly mentioned there and those things that just are events. The existence of any number of other articles, as an AfD argument, is addressed in OTHERSTUFF. Although citing precedent of guideline usage, policy decisions, other AfDs and previous discussions is well accepted, the mere existence of other articles may be due to not having them nominated for deletion yet. We can not claim that other being wrong gives us the right to do it the wrong way too. Every AfD is to be considered on its own merits. As an aside, Wikipedia has now about 5 million articles, and at AfD appear about a 120 per day, you see, there may be lots of candidates for AfD out there, and not enough people to do the screening. Kraxler (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: an interesting facet of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay that is rarely mentioned is the part about "they [comparisons to other articles] may form part of a cogent argument". User:NewYorkActuary has made a cogent argument. That OTHERSTUFF is cited in the context of precedent set by AFD (i.e. consensus) and consistency (also a form of consensus) is logical and appropriate. I also take issue with the definition of "local" in this case, as has been pointed out San Luis Potosí (both city and state) are significant population centers. (on a side note, I for one am sick of this pageant AFD business, while we are throwing around essays perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be given consideration....) Vrac (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your argument about OTHERSTUFF, I've used the "may form part of a cogent argument" part a couple of times myself. Fact is that about a dozen of local (statewide) Mexican beauty pageant articles have been deleted recently, for lack of coverage. So, precedent would favor to delete in this case. If you analyze my last 500 AfD votes, I doubt that you will discover what I like and what I don't like, because the same type of topic/topic area may be, or may be not, notable, depending on a variety of circumstances, and my votes are always policy-guideline-based. There are noe 5 refs in the article, all from local newspapers. There seems to be no coverage outside this area. Besides, the articles are about five different particular editions of the event, not about the history or the actual organization of the event. It's still time to dig something up. Kraxler (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IDONTLIKETHAT was a reference to the nominator, who, you'll have to admit, has a strange obsession with these things. The recent deletion of Mexican state pageants is more a reflection of general lack of knowledge/interest in Mexican topics than anything else. I follow Mexico deletion sorting and I frequently see things get nominated that would be no-brainer keeps if it were the American equivalent. Add in the fact that it's a beauty pageant and you get a double-death knell. A more interesting precedent is NewYorkActuary's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss South Dakota example (also nominated by guess who): an American state with about 1/3 the population of San Luis Potosí (and mostly rural to boot, the largest town in SD is barely a city by American standards); and yet it is snowball kept at AFD. The South Dakota article is also referenced with local sources, sources that I would argue are way more "local" than the San Luis Potosí ones given the relative population size. Even the District of Columbia has a pageant article and it's not even a state. Dare I say it all smells a bit like systemic bias.... Vrac (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been aware of the Miss South Dakota AfD, thanks for the link. Well, seeing voters say "statewide pageants are notable" in South Dakota, and nobody coming up with the same rationale at any of the Mexican pageants, does indeed look strange. Kraxler (talk) 22:33, 23 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire)[edit]

United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire) (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)

Although I am an avid fan of election articles, having created several thousand myself, there doesn't really seem to be any point to articles like this. West Yorkshire is a ceremonial county, but not an electoral district, so this ends up just being about the results in a small number of constituencies. Results at the county level do not have any particular importance in British elections. I am also nominating the other West Yorkshire article for deletion (United Kingdom general election, 2005 (West Yorkshire)), and if this is successful, I will do a further AfD on the various other articles in this vein (e.g. Cornwall, Edinburgh, Lancashire, London etc). Number 57 19:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there User:Number 57. May I ask how you found this article? AusLondonder (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found it ages ago, probably after spotting it appearing on the new article bot feed. As you may recall, I prodded it at the time, but you removed the prod and we had a discussion on the talk page that ended when I asked for evidence of consensus that these articles were noteworthy (this discussion would suggest otherwise). I just forgot about it until I saw today that you were still creating them. Why is that of interest to you? Number 57 20:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may interest you WP:Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall given your plans to nominate other article such as London and Cornwall. AusLondonder (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall AusLondonder (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a speedy keep situation, particularly when an identical AfD the previous week resulted in the articles being deleted. The more recent discussion linked above suggests that consensus may have changed. Number 57 20:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Elections receive substantial, ongoing coverage in the news, as such election articles are nearly always notable, I can't think of a time when they wouldn't be. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SuperCarnivore591: Yes, elections always receive significant coverage, and all national elections are deemed automatically notable, hence why we have the United Kingdom general election, 2015 article and why I have written so many articles myself. However, this AfD is on an article about the results in a small number of constituencies with no apparent reason why West Yorkshire's results are notable enough to be singled out (i.e. it seems to be a rather pointless WP:CONTENTFORK. Number 57 08:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a necessary article for this arbitrary land area. Just use the constituency pages. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 16:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As this has been relisted again, I am pinging @Bondegezou, MrPenguin20, and Super Nintendo Chalmers: who all commented on the existence of these types of pages at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015/Archive 4#New election result articles. Number 57 15:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Having been pinged... Delete I appreciate the effort, but I cannot see the point of this article. We have an article for the election, indeed many related articles (on polling, for each individual constituency). This article merely collates information on other articles. While the results tables cites the Yorkshire Post, the newspaper does not give the data in that form, so it all becomes a bit original research-ish. I can see some value in separate articles for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales given the distinct political cultures in each, but not in these articles at county level. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On a somewhat tangential note, the prior Cornwall AfD encompassed a rather different sort of article that I feel warranted re-consideration, thus I have done this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire. People here may wish to comment there. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't United Kingdom general election, 2005 (West Yorkshire) have some sort of AfD notice so people no it's included in this discussion? Bondegezou (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, now added. Number 57 09:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; West Yorkshire not really existing as a jurisdiction anymore, I don't see a practical benefit to this article. This is different from Cornwall, which is an actual jurisdiction currently. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlike Wales and Cornwall, "West Yorkshire" isn't a distinct jurisdiction. Tiller54 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 21:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CERF (software)[edit]

CERF (software) (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 product. Fails WP:GNG: the product has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Further, merging the content into the company that developed it (Rescentris) does not appear appropriate, since the company itself does not even seem to be notable (WP:PRODUCT). The deepest independent coverage I could find for the product is on page 96 of this paper, but that short review, to me, is insufficient to establish notability. Edcolins (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Added additional external source for CERF as a scientific data management tool (scientists against malaria and NAABB) and added some peer review journal articles that use CERF in discussions of the value of semantic technologies to scientific data curation. Invasifspecies (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated broken links and added additional external source Invasifspecies (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete It's mentioned in a few sources, but the it's brief - the extensive coverage isn't there. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article is notable and has Valid resources (Toomass (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Could you please elaborate? Which "valid resources" do you mean? To me, the coverage is really thin, i.e. not significant. --Edcolins (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - research on this is difficult because the acronym is also the last name of an internet pioneer Vint Cerf. But I could find no substantial coverage of this software which would indicate it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a lot of references in the article, but most of them look like they're unlikely to meet our WP:RS requirements. I spot-checked a half dozen which looked like they might be reasonable, but they all turned out to be either first-party, passing mentions, or unable to satisfy WP:RS for one reason or another. It would be useful if somebody would pick the two or three best references and list them here for more detailed review, but lacking that, I don't see this passing the bar. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XE Mobile[edit]

XE Mobile (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)

My searches simply found nothing good (with the best solid mentions I found here) and it is not surprising as it only seemed to have lasted about a year. At best, if others agree, this can mentioned at a related article such as AT&T. Pinging past editors Mrzaius and Strunke. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the genericness of "XE Mobile" is causing problems, with searches providing results such as HTC Sensation XE and XE.com mobile apps. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient sourcing available to assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brigham Young University. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAGICC Lab[edit]

MAGICC Lab (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 third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 22:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe mention and redirect to Brighham Young University as I found enough results to suggest this is known and may be best known through the university, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge in to Brigham Young University, Doesn't really warrant a standalone article but personally think it atleast deserves a mention at BYU. –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Heritage Academy. Not entirely sure on the redirect location but aint gonna relist to find out so I'm going with Rainbow Unicorn & redirecting it to National Heritage Academy (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canton Charter Academy[edit]

Canton Charter Academy (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 school - no indication that this passes WP:SCHOOLS, WP:CORP, WP:GNG. Previous PROD contested. Recommend redirection to either National Heritage Academy (slight preference) or Canton, Michigan#Public charter schools (2nd choice). Okay with keeping or not keeping revision history and okay with outright deletion. If there is zero discussion after a week, recommend a quick redirect-without-prejudice-to-revert to either of the above destinations rather than re-listing (this can be done by a non-admin, see WP:Non-admin closure). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable elementary school that hasn't made national news. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Question from the nominator for Charlie the Pig: Would you be okay with a redirect to National Heritage Academy, Canton, Michigan#Public charter schools, or either one? I ask because I will not withdraw/speedy-close unless there is a solution that all participants in this discussion, including myself, can agree on (this is what wikt:consensus means) and which does not require the use of administrative tools. So far, you nave only explicitly indicated that you are only okay with delete, Kudpong has only explicitly indicated he is okay with redirect, and I'm okay with either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That could also be another option. I'm fine with it. Best of wishes! Charlie the Pig (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect of course as per age-old practice and precedent as documented at WP:OUTCOMES and probably nearly 1,000 AfD closures.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Any particular precedent that you know of that would sway the decision for the redirect target? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice: This discussion is mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#WP:X or Y. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for Kudpung. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to National Heritage Academy seems good, since they operate those schools it's similar to a school district in that way. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:02, 23 September 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatsan at44[edit]

Hatsan at44 (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)

My searches found no good results (with the best results here, here and here, there's no good move target aside from list of airguns and I'm not sure if Hatsan is independently notable for an article. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...Simply not notable. To me, the article basically says "Hey, Turkey makes a BB gun!". So, what...who cares.--RAF910 (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient in-depth coverage available to assert notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Najarpur mandir[edit]

Najarpur mandir (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 temple has no notability and the article's only reference is a dead link. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete for lack of notability. The article's only assertion of notability is its unsourced claim that the temple is an "import pilgrimage" for members of a certain religious sect. But the sole reference doesn't mention this. Indeed, the sole reference is an article about the village of Najarpur, in which the mandir is given only passing mention. To be fair, that passing mention describes the mandir as "well known". But on the other hand, one of the references in the article on Najarpur includes a link to a travel site that lists six "things to see" when in Najarpur, and the mandir is not on that list. Furthermore, a quick visit to an English-language site hosted by the sect lists about 200 mandirs in India and Nepal, and says nothing about the Najarpur mandir being unique or special in any way. And so a merge to the article on Najarpur, followed by a deletion of the instant article, seems in order. I've already begun the merge process, by importing some of the content from the instant article into the article on the village (see the diff here). NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for non-notability. Quis separabit? 18:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, searches did not turn up enough to meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Masi[edit]

Luigi Masi (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:NBAND. Does not appear to have made the national chart, and little reliable coverage. Mdann52 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything to show notability. Google News search for "luigi masi" only brings up mentions of the name on Italian websites, probably different a person(s) unrelated to him, since according to the article he lives in London. The chart his songs apparently were on also don't seem to be notable [4] (Music Week). Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I found no better sourcing with my best result being a popjustice.com link (not familiar with this website). SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. I just nominated his two other articles here. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 21:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Smith[edit]

Curtis Smith (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)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. All the sources seem to come from his own company, from trade directories & promotional interviews. Bazj (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His business position is notable enough, and not all the sources come from his own company. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Changing to delete, not seeing any good improvement. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "business position" are you referring to? Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:PROMO curriculum, spiked with name-dropping, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not seeing any improvement and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing on the search engines shows notability. As Kraxler said, notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of independent coverage, and lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. --Bejnar (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]