< 22 September	24 September >

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Brennan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Person is not notable outside creating an imageboard, which has its own page. Lucasoutloud (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per previous nomination: person has earned extensive coverage in his own right. The articles by the New York Times and Al Jazeera, which are the best and the most indepth articles about him, do not even mention the imageboard. --GRuban (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per GRuban Aparslet (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Has been discussed tonnes of times. Brennan is clearly not just a BLP1E man. Brustopher (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. AfD nominator is a dormant account (last edits were in December 2014). Article definitely meets WP:GNG. Likely bad faith nomination. sst^flyer 10:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of sources on this article appear to be of questionable reliability; and given the nature of Brennan's claim to notability, I'm skeptical that this can improve much. Unsure if this is a reason not to have an article, though. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because the coverage seems acceptable albeit common to the usual media topics though. Pinging past commenters Salvidrim, Aldnonymous and TheRedPenOfDoom. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG; his message board is obviously notable as well. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 28 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) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Banner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails pornbio and gng. Nominations no longer count Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine BLP cleanup; subject fails current PORNBIO standards, and never approached the GNG's requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:50, 30 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) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austyn Moore[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng. The award win was a listener's choice award for a radio station she worked for and isnt a major award either, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails pornbio & gng. –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam_&_Eve_(company)#Pornographic_film_studio, which is the section detailing some of Adam & Eve's past contract stars. Without having done a large amount of research about the subject under consideration here, one of Ms. Moore's most significant accomplishments appears to have been her apparent brief stint as a contract star with Adam & Eve. Guy1890 (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO without significant award wins. A KSEX in-house award is not major. Fails GNG. Most significant RS coverage is a paragraph in a Fox News article. Other mainstream coverage consists of passing mentions. Porn industry press consists of interviews and republished press releases. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No serious support for retaining an individual article. We don't redirect NN authors to publishers they happen to have written for, NN actors to studios the've done unimportant work for, or NN local politicians to the town they live in. No basis for special favorable treatment for porn performer names. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:46, 30 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. I'm discounting the opinion by Hillary Scott love (and the reference to it by Subtropical-man) because the words "notable, model, music video, mainstream girl" do not amount in any way to an argument that makes sense in the light of the arguments advanced for deletion, i.e., that this fails our inclusion guidelines. Sandstein 17:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Hendrix[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng. 1 scene award and nominations don't count Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with coverage by firstcoastnews.com ([1]) and Las Vegas Weekly ([2]). Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The first link is local sensationalist nonsense and the second is an interview so primary not secondary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, model, music video, mainstream girl.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear failure to meet PORNBIO. Claims to satisfy the GNG also fail; of the two sources cited, the first is a superficial local news story with little or no content regarding the article subject beyond one neighbor's allegations; the second is a fairly generic promotional interview in a low-circulation giveaway weekly paper. There's just not enough there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hillary Scott`love arguments. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I think my HOTTIE !votes weigh more than both yours and her !votes combined!, Good try tho!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG, no claim of notability in the article, porn career is run-of-the-mill, sources are in-trade or insignificant Kraxler (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ice La Fox[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng. 1 scene award and nominations don't count Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Appearing in an award-winning feature isn't enough to satisfy PORNBIO criterion #2. Fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook PORNBIO failure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:36, 30 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) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah o'brien[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. Lots of detail without even one good WP:RS, and I'm not seeing the necessary sourcing when I search. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had proposed the article for deletion, and my rationale here is the same: O'Brien is the writer/director/producer of a single film produced by the studio of which she is the CEO. (Sounds much like a person with a handicam.) The horror film industry is particularly heavily populated with cottage industry studios. O'Brien's single film is completely non-notable, and her article is sourced entirely to primary sources or her IMDb page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply for now as there's nothing to suggest better and the films are all still in production and let's not even start with the aftermath of notability and coverage from there. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like the article creator also created a duplicate Susannah O'Brien. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The newer article has been nominated under WP:CSD#A10. If this article survives the AFD, it can be moved to the proper title (presuming the newer article has been deleted by then). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 28 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) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Sky[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng. Nominations no longer count Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this performer pass PORNBIO or GNG? No award wins, just nominations. Where is the substantial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources? The citations in the article are interviews (primary sources), blog posts and passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She's a rather famous adult film star. I did some brief research and found an award win, which I added to the awards and nominations section. Landed here randomly and have no real interest though, so I'll let those more familiar determine if that affects whether or not this article passes PORNBIO or GNG.Brakoholic (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's apparently a subtrivial if not outright fake award, probably devised by the subject's publicist. It's sourced only to "Rising Star PR", and the press release doesn't even say who gave out the award or when and where it was given out. There's nothing to indicate it's even minimally notable, and certainly falls far, far short of the PORNBIO "well-known/significant" standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotionally sourced BLP that lacks even a legitimate assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:28, 30 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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Granville Sharp[edit]

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

Notability (WP:N) - mid-ranking legal figure and repeatedly defeated parliamentary candidate. Not noteworthy enough for his own article. Frinton100 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN 2.7.1 as he was Justice of Appeal of the Supreme Court, Ghana, 1957–62. Graemp (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOLITICIAN, a Judge holding nationwide office. AusLondonder (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a judge of a superior court. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 27 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 Speedily deleted for various reasons. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WARx2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film. The references listed are almost all just the same synopsis on different sites (plus a couple unreliable reviews). Besides the previous deletion, it has been deleted at AfD twice before under a different title. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This would qualify to be deleted for sheer promotional fluff, given the prose in the article. Now there is one review at Rotten Tomatoes, which is helpful, but I'm somewhat leery given the limited coverage of the film. Now something that I need to highlight is that the following sentence is incorrect:

This film was listed as the best film of the year by PBS Television along with Dinesh D'souza's America film.

I've e-mailed PBS and asked them about this and this list was aggregated by awards given out at various film festivals. It is not an award from PBS itself and the representative from PBS was fairly specific in that the list should not be seen as an award by PBS - or even an endorsement. If anything, they seemed very upset that someone was trying to claim an award that does not exist because the list is an aggregate and not an award or recognition at all. This claim deliberately and grossly misrepresents the PBS article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing this seems to have in its favor is the RT review. None of the fan ratings are usable - and this is one situation where I am very, very skeptical of the ratings given how much the film's crew has marketed the film and how incredibly deceptive their marketing has been. It's common for filmmakers and marketing people to stretch the truth, but it isn't very common for them to outright lie in order to sell a film. And yes, what they did with the PBS post is an outright lie. I also think that this will need to go through an SPI, given that sockpuppetry was used during the last AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI is here. I have performed a search and other than the new review, there's nothing else out there. Whatever award it won to show up on the PBS aggregate post, it does not appear to have gained any actual coverage. There's a ton of press releases that the film's marketing crew has slathered over the internet but not really any actual coverage that'd show that this film would warrant an article. Given the dishonesty about the PBS post, I think that any award that this film receives should be considered suspect unless it has received coverage in independent and reliable sources (ie, no press releases or news articles that relies on press releases from the film's marketing department) in order to ensure that they haven't purchased a vanity award. I wouldn't consider the PBS aggregate a sign of the award's notability since this might have been a situation where they listed it because they were contacted by the marketing department, who claimed the film won an award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It is more notable now. I'm not a puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katymall (talk • contribs) 05:41, 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) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classical office furniture[edit]

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

Topic reads like a guidebook, seemingly original research, flagged with a variety of fundamental issues for 4+ years but hasn't really been touched. Nsteffel (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Best case, this is unreferenced, sometimes incomprehensible original research. Worst case, this contains copyright violations via machine translation of one of Hu Desheng's Chinese-language works on Ming and Qing Dynasty furniture. Some of it certainly reads like a machine translation of something. Regardless, I don't see anything here of value, and I don't think this title defines a coherent topic anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/salvage into Chinese furniture (no redirect) Article is about Ming and Qing dynasty-styled furniture, and nothing even majorly specific to "office". Whatever useful could be salvaged away but overwhelmingly this should be deleted without sources. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article about chines furniture & should have been speedied as an article on a topic for which there is already an article. Title is too ambiguous to be suitable as a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose if this is best. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, Rename to Chinese antique office furniture and prune. Nevertheless, I am far from convinced of the merits of having it at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 29 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) 21:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Levy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous AfD last December was closed for lack of a quorum. The article has barely been touched since then but more importantly, the subject still appears to fail the general notability criterion. Pichpich (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No cited sources or any real notability. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing to suggest better and I wish I would've been here for that past nom but I'm pleased to see you stuck with it and nominated again, Pichpich. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 27 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 Nomination withdrawn. I have looked again at the links provided by MichaelQSchmidt, and decided that there is, after all, plenty of evidence of notability. Many thanks to MichaelQSchmidt for the work he has put in. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close Range[edit]

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

Article on an "upcoming" film with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No sources except IMDb. (A PROD was removed without explanation by an IP editor.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search alts:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: While the new stub brought to AFD looked pretty poor, it was not at all difficult to make some adjustments to the article for, even if the film promises to screen in the US next year, it has already screened on Polish television and is thus NOT an unsourcable topic. I may be back after adding a few sources to the article. I love using WP:BEFORE. Y. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:32, 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 merge to 2012 Munich artworks discovery. Courcelles (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector)[edit]

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

I previously redirected this to 2012 Munich artworks discovery citing WP:BLP1E in 2013 but User:Lx 121 has reverted today. Although this person is no longer alive, I think it is still clear that they were only notable for their involvement in this case and as such there is no reason to have a separate article. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST - i object to the fact that the above user eliminated this article UNILATERALLY, without ANY discussion. that was not appropriate; certainly not for an admin, who should know better.,

SECOND - while i am reasonably "agnostic" as to whether this article continues as a standalone, or is MERGED, i object to one user simply ERASING the article, without including the relevant information in the redirected article. the redirect article provides virtually NO background info about cornelius gurlitt, he simply "appears" in the narrative there; as a man without a history. this is NOT good "encyclopedic" practice. :p

Lx 121 (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be stroppy. I made a bold edit and you disagree - that's fine. That no one else raised an objection at the time or in the last two years makes me fairly confident that it was the right decision. The only background about him present in the article is original research based off a primary source so is hardly suitable to merge. SmartSE (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

observation - it can't be BOTH "original research" AND "based off a primary source"; those 2 conditions contradict each other. & i'm sorry, but when someone makes edits that clearly & obviously make wikipedia less-useful, i get tend to "stroppy" about it; especially coming from an experienced user, who should know better. Lx 121 (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO - i'm not at all clear on what "primary source" it is that you are referring to? Lx 121 (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 Munich artwork discovery, per nominator's arguments. It makes sense: the story is in the art, and the old man hiding them is only notable by his association with that art. If he had been hiding old newspapers, no one would have cared. He is amply covered in the 2012 Munich artworks discovery article.New Media Theorist (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"amply covered" - REALLY? no date of birth, no back ground, no personal history, no explanation of how he came to the attention of the authorities in the first place, & you consider this to be adequate? clearly, & with all due respect, you & i have radically different ideas of what constitutes "amply covered", in this case. Lx 121 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2012 Munich artworks discovery. The info is useful, but he is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 Munich artworks discovery. Not sure how much there is to merge, that piece seems to handle the bio well enough. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 28 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) 21:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeet upcoming filmography[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, upcoming films that have not commenced principal photography (apart from whose preproduction itself is notable). Therefore an article detailing an actor's future filmography is not acceptable for inclusion. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to what the nominator says above, no citations are currently given, and one section states "Nearly about signing" which is essentially unconfirmed speculation. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above, filmography is not usually notable until it's been released. The article also cites no sources at all, and hasn't been edited by the page creator since it was created, which suggests there are no plans to improve the article. -- Kethrus |talk to me 00:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no obvious need for this yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Bhadani (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:CRYSTAL / WP:NOTADVERT and content will never meet the threshold of being excessive for coverage in the main filmography article or actor article. overboard fan enthusiasm. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously WP:CRYSTAL!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 29 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) 21:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T.I.N Magazine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources on this magazine online asides primary sources. The references in the article are also just a primary source and alexa website. Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 as promotional article with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 27 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 delete WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Ivanović (archaeologist)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. An archaeologist with a master's degree who does not appear to be teaching anywhere at any level, and who has published some papers on academia.edu, but apparently none in any actual journals. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's primary author has requested speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G7). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inside (Movie)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE Ireneshih (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe you could have WP:PRODed it even. The subject of the article is clearly not notable anyway. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 18:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had he done so, the prod would have been rejected and we'd have come to AFD anyways for more eyes willing to do the look to find Serbian language sources for a Serbian language film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

Keep as the poorly written brand new article sent to AFD here as a poor translation from Serbian Wikipedia or the Croatian Wikipedia is a topic proving itself improvable... and under its Serbian name Unutra appears to just meet WP:NF.[3][4][5] Folks, WP:BEFORE is really a nice tool to use. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the current coverage is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFILM. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The coverage and the quality of articles on other Wikis look good. In my view, enough to slightly pass WP:NFILM. — Yash! ^(Y) 10:05, 30 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) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feathers of Knysna[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2009, lets make a decision either way. Feathers does appear to be just another company started to capture the tourist market Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches on News, Newspapers, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR turned up nothing. There were a few trivial mentions in Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than a few Books links. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 27 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu Cinema Charitra[edit]

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

Not clear if this is a notable book. I'm not sure if winning the Nandi Awards is sufficient to be considered notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Meets WP:NBOOK, namely "The book has won a major literary award" AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as this seems locally significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would appear to be an important work on Telugo Cinema, and the Nandi Awards are national. For one who does not speak Telugo, searching on తెలుగు సినిమా చరిత్ర isn't easy, and should maybe be left to those who deos. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NBOOK. It has won a "major literary award", the Nandi Award. Those awards are considered to be of the highest level for work in Telugu arts. The book is significant itself in being considered as one of the first ever detailed study of the old Telugu cinema. — Yash! ^(Y) 10:12, 30 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 delete. G4. Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-op Co-op[edit]

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

While the topic that's being described exists, though the article hardly explains it well at all, as a learning strategy it doesn't appear to be notable. The article itself also fails to present matters objectively, sounding rather advertisement-like in its wording. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Criteria G4 (Recreation of prior deleted material). This was already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsundue/Co-op Co-op. See also User:Tsundue/Co-op Co-op. Crow^Caw 23:13, 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) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lashes[edit]

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

Does not appear that Ben Lashes is notable enough on his own for an article- most of notability comes from clients, some brief articles on him in 2013 but nothing since. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG - only mentioned in relation to clients. Fench (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than some links here. Notifying past user Otterathome for comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 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) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. M. S. Ramaiah Memorial Parliamentary Debate[edit]

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

does not meet wp:notability, references cites are personal blogspots and does not meet wp:RS Shrikanthv (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable source regarding this topic. Bharatiya29 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly mention and redirect to the school as I found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any evidence this debating society is more notable than the many others. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:41, 27 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) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering, procurement and construction[edit]

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

Vague topic, WP:NOTHOWTO John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least TNT Concept appears to have some use, but this form is wholly not encyclopedic, mainly failing WP:NOTHOWTO or that it is copied from some rule book somewhere. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Better articles already exist at project management and design-build. shoy (reactions) 14:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, beyond the problems pointed out above there are also copyright issues. For example, parts are copied, or at least very closely paraphrased, from here. Huon (talk) 17:58, 26 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. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of parish priests of Ciruelos[edit]

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

Lack significant coverage. Sietecolores (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is plain stupid. The parish of Ciruelos is one of the oldest of Chile, and the list, obviously notable per se. There is plenty of literature on the Parish, did you even try searching on Google? Keep --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No there is is not any significant coverage. Most of the web content I have found so far is blogs and tourism websites. Diego, please indicate how coverage is significant. Sietecolores (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Ciruelos is a very small village, and I cannot find notability either for it or for it's parish church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- E.M.Gregory: Please note that the parish of Ciruelos comprised, at least until the creation of the commune of Pichilemu in 1894, the territories of the current communes of Peralillo, Paredones, Litueche, Pumanque, Peralillo and Marchigüe (once named Trinidad -Peralillo and Marchigüe-, San Antonio -Pichilemu, and parts of Litueche and Pumanque-, and Cáhuil -southern part of Pichilemu, and Paredones-. [6] Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Diego Grez-Cañete The proper approach is to expand both this article and the article about Ciruelos with well sourced information demonstrating that the priests, parish and village were and/or are significant, noteworthy, important in the world beyond the parish. I looked for such significance, but could not find it.E.M.Gregory (talk)
- - I understand it is troublesome to find sources related to the history of the whole area of Cardenal Caro (province). Very few books have been published on the topic (i.e. Pichilemu: mis fuentes (1990) by Antonio Saldías, Historia urbana de Pichilemu (1996) by Juan Mella, and De campesino a cardenal (1966) by Alberto Arraño, the latter, rather the biography of Cardinal José María Caro, but still, provides some good information). I do have copies of the three books, but unfortunately have no time to expand the articles detailing such thing. I am going to publish a book, in December, that contains a lot of info about Ciruelos and the parish, but I cannot include it now since it would count as original research. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, if there is anybody interested in expanding or modifying this article and the one about Ciruelos, I may provide (privately) a PDF copy of the books I cited. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Village priests don't rate a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The fact that not one of the priests has a blue link to an article suggests that they are all NN; in which case the list is also NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list cruft. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. We are not a web host for lists. Even if the parish is notable, its priests might not be. Normally, only bishops, saints, and monsignors would be considered notable. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 29 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) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wyrostek[edit]

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

Non-notable author and my searches found nothing good at all with the only links being this, this, this and this and there are probably more mentions but none of this accumulates to a better article, as an author or musician. Notifying past user Froid who edited Steve Wyrostek in January 2012. NOTE: I'm also co-nominating another author, Jill Dearman, for which I found no good coverage aside from the usual Books results and a few reviews at Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Jill Dearman AfD included in this one or separate? I think it would be best for it to be separate -- I don't see how they are related. I also haven't had the time to look for sources for Dearman. LaMona (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was too soon, and the future book notability did not pan out. As far as I can tell, the book he was seeking a publisher for did not happen. Nor did anything else of notability. LaMona (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona I'm actually nominating both articles in one so do you have comments about Jill Dearman? SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that his book on Trantel will be notable, and without that his achievements are minuscule. NB The deletion notice on Dearman's article actually points here. 80.91.63.2 (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Would you like to comment? SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both . Wyrostek--his band does not seem notable; his writings certainly aren't: an unwritten book do not give notability. PRWeb is a useless source in any case. Jill Dearman has at least published an atual bpok, tho it has very few library holdings. The article is very highly promotional in a personal way, and the notability isnt nearly enough to warrant a rescue. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 27 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) 21:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Chase[edit]

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

Article is about a novella. Article has been around for awhile, so I'm going the XfD route. Article was published by a self-publish type outfit called America Star Books. I'm not seeing any reliable refs, just the usually social media and booksellers. Author also goes by "Tori Munro". Bgwhite (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. google search brings up nothing useable. Article createor was a SPA and appears to be author of the book ie.User talk:Torimunro95. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; concur with above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NBOOK. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:38, 30 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 Ellen Pao. Sufficient consents exists here to merge and redirect; however several different locations have been brought up, and that is the question here. I'm going to close this as a merge to Ellen Pao, being that it was brought up several times within the discussion and there was no consensus for another location. That being said, if anyone wants to put minimal content about the term into a lawsuit article, I don't think it should be a problem (assuming it's relevant, of course). (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pao effect[edit]

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

Fails GNG, vauge coverage of a term coined for a single news article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vague, little used term. Few sources. Fails general notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Ellen Pao#Gender discrimination lawsuit (or possibly Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, which doesn't mention it at the moment) seems more appropriate at the moment. If the term gains widespread acceptance, then it can be made it's own full article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with redirect The term is used in Forbes, Al Jazeera, and other news outlets. My quick search turned up a number of hits using the term. It's being used a lot... often as the whole subject of the article. If the article can't be expanded on its own now, a merge with redirect makes sense.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect There are indeed several articles about the subject in reliable sources, but sufficient time has not lapsed to verify if this term is fleeting or permanent. It should be mentioned in both Ellen Pao and Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. If over time the term is still in use, would justify its own article as is an effect upon other's actions not part of either Pao's actions or her suit. SusunW (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This stub meets all the requirements of notability WP:N, verifiability WP:V), reliable sources WP:RS, and what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT. This article can be fixed through normal editing. The creator of the article and other editors should be given more time to develop the article. Since other editors have some questions regarding the article expressed here in this AfD, perhaps such concerns should be expressed on the talk page of the article so that they can be addressed there as suggested by WP:Articles for deletion. The topic “Pao effect” is a separate topic and differs from content contained in the article about Pao. This term is used in refs 1, 3, 4, and 5. A further search for sources resulted in this,this, this. The topic is quite separate from the person and describes the formation of a legal precident. The article is not about the lawsuit or the person. The topic has gained wide-spread acceptance as described in the sources. Unreliable sources, which are not used in the article, show that the topic is a major topic of discussion in legal blogs and other forms of online discussions. It is not a little used term and has gained widespread acceptance.

Bfpage |leave a message 10:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see offtopic discussion: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pao effect. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this has certainly become its own phenomenon per Silicon Valley attorneys: Already seeing a Pao effect. — Cirt (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Though not reliable sources, these references are from blogs that use the term "Pao effect" in their discussions, indicating that the topic is indeed used widely. a law firm blog, another blog, another blog, and another blog. These blogs do not add verifiability to the topic, they merely demonstrate the widespread use of the term.

Bfpage |leave a message 17:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those blogs are just duplicates or links to the actual articles, some are commercial in nature. It doesn't demonstrate anything at all.Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are too many forks at this table. Please, let's merge Pao_v._Kleiner_Perkins into this, or vice-versa. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Bearian: Why merge a vocabulary-related article with a lawsuit-related article? How would one go about categorizing the resulting mishmash article?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Pao v. Kleiner Perkins - The neologism is mentioned a number of times in sources, but it's a term about the effect of a case (or its plaintiff in filing that suit), and we already have an article about the case. A notable neologism? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article. I just rewrote the relevant section in the article about the case, using some of the sources in this article. There's not really any need for a merge, rather than a redirect, but that's the end result here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. Since the phrase refers to the trial, I don't see why we can't discuss it there. Since a merge has already been done, I guess it's not necessary. If this begins to overwhelm the parent article, it can be split off, but creating a separate article currently seems like overkill. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
See also: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pao effect § merge with redirect
Ottawahitech (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ellen Pao. This seems to be part of her impact on society, not a standalone article. Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with redirect to Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. Has adequate notability due to major sources (Fortune, CNBC, etc.) A bit light to stand alone, but If merged, for sure keep the redirect; as noted, if the term continues to expand in use, could be spun off again. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Ellen Pao. Right now, this term has sources to illustrate notability, but I don't think the article effectively illustrates why this term can't simply be included in a biography of Ellen Pao, which would include, necessarily, information on her impact in her field. If there were perhaps more info on the history and development of the term, then an article for its linguistics use could be made, but the origin of the term is pretty straightforward... Anyway, merge with Ellen Pao! Fuzchia (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What an unfair statement: I don't think the article effectively illustrates why this term can't simply be included in a biography of Ellen PaoThis article was nominated for deletion shorty after it was created. If it wasn’t for this nomination this article would most probably be better developed by now. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @Fuzchia: In the interest of keeping this deletion-vote-page clutter-free please join discussions on the talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The purpose of this deletion page is to discuss it, Ottawahitech, according to Wikipedia's own deletion guidelines. It's not a simple vote page, and as other people's comments above mine illustrate, this is a space to discuss the merits and shortcomings of the article. It's problematic I think to splinter the discussion into different pages. That said, you're free to expand the article as this discussion continues. Fuzchia (talk) 16:15, 30 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. Considering that two of the "keep" opinions are qualified as "weak", and that a third does not address the sourcing situation, I think we can find a narrow consensus to delete. But this can probably be restored if rewritten to appear less promotional and using better sources. Sandstein 17:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zalora[edit]

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

Alleged to be non-notable, and appears to be written like an advertisement. Was previously csd-deleted in 2012, listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(uninitiated in fashion) Keep Article is currently in a large majority just an excessively detailed chronicle of the company's development/expansion history. Not really promotional, but mor of general WP:IINFO. Better sources appear to exist, to hopefully inspire more depth from editors with expertise in fashion/eCommerce. Example source I feel useful: [7][8][9][10] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the article definitely needs cleanup to remove advertising material, the topic meets WP:GNG. WP:TNTing the article may be appropriate. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now as News found some of the news links and although this could be better, I suppose it's acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article looks terrible at the moment, and it may need to be reduced down to something like only two sentences. However, the organization has picked up the kind of reliable source coverage that makes it seem at least partly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic promotional article, with promotional language. And sources that talk only about initial funding are unreliable for notability, because they are essentially mere notices. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm sympathetic to DGG's concerns, and the article could use some improvement, I think the English language sources alone show the company's notability: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I think it's safe to assume that there are plenty of non-English sources available too. Sam Walton (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For goodness sake! This is a three-year-old start-up which "hopes one day to be a billion dollar business" but isn't now. Have any of you actually read the "coverage"? With the exception of the article from... er... Popspoken which is primarily about one of the brands this company is marketing (not the company), they are all reprints of press releases or blatantly press release-based. That goes for CNBC and Elle as well. TechCrunch is a particular offender in puffing start-ups and their CEOs via multiple PR pieces masquerading as articles. I would never regard a write-up in TechCrunch as mark of notability. Ditto VentureBeat. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO advert, article based on press releases and routine announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO. None of the references cited in the article or offered in this AfD meet the requirements of WP:RS; they are all routine listings of funding rounds, rehashed press releases, interviews, etc. FWIW, I also note that the primary author of the article is a WP:SPA -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion and fails WP:CORPDEPTH per Kraxler. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvement - clearly a notable topic, and a fixable article in my opinion. --Slashme (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional gunk. I actually went into this with an open mind, leaning keep, but found bupkiss counting towards fulfillment of GNG in a Google search. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 28 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 Power Rangers Dino Thunder#Cast. General consensus that this article fails notability requirements. Redirecting as this appears to be the outcome most in-line with policy. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Duhaney[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR - mostly appears not to have had multiple "major" roles, and there is a distinct lack of sources about them. Mdann52 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree re non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 19:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power Rangers Dino Thunder as I found nothing better although he has quite a few roles. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, does not fail WP:ACTOR at all. Boaxy (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boaxy: I'd recommend you expand on why it does. Mdann52 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Been a lead actor in many television series and films. Power Rangers, Total Drama Island, Disney Channel etc., Has done live action work and voice over work for animations. Boaxy (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power Rangers Dino Thunder. I cannot find any news or feature articles at all regarding this actor, except for his appearances at Comic-Con as the blue Dino Ranger. The article does not have even one WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 26 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 17:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHS (high schools)[edit]

We don't need this. No one is going to look for a high school such as Walker High School by typing in WHS. Pretty much any high school that starts with W can be abbreviated to such. Voortle (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCA. How many High Schools would have this acronym? 5000? 10000? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are similar, long-established (eg DHS Jan 2008), dab pages, or sections of dab pages, for AHS, BHS, CHS, DHS ... (at, or linked from, those links). They do no harm. People do indeed refer to high schools by initials, these abbreviations are mentioned in the articles, and there seems no reason to make an exception to our usual rules just because these dab pages include so many entries. PamD 08:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unnecessary page, since it is unlikely readers would assume the "WHS" they are interested in is the only one in the world with those initials and search for an article about it by typing in the initials. It is also unlikely they would know the initials but not the name of the school. "It does no harm" is an ineffective keep argument as is "other stuff exists." Edison (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab page that fails WP:DABABBREV "Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article includes the acronym or abbreviation—we are resolving an ambiguity, not making yet another dictionary of abbreviations" None of these schools is referred to as WHS in any sources. Kraxler (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as there's no consensus to delete; even the nominator advocates redirection rather than deletion. (NAC) Andrew D. (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home-improvement center[edit]

Such article is a tiny stub. It's been this way for a long time. I think it should be redirected to hardware store. Voortle (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep It can be expanded. Theres more out there if you look. A home improvement center is not the same as a hardware store. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it can be expanded beyond a dicdef by normal editing processes. Please see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Playhouse Theatre Company[edit]

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

This theater company appears to fail WP:ORG. While it is asserted that it is the "oldest theater company" in Vermont, United States of America, I question whether this company is a *professional* theater company. As always, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. Prove me wrong! Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The initial version of this article didn't cite any sources and it's understandable that a reader might question it, but some quick searching for "Weston Playhouse" bears out this theater's notability. 85 news hits at HighBeam Research, 101 in The New York Times, 15 in The Wall Street Journal: not all of these are substantive, of course, but here, for example, is what Terry Teachout of the WSJ had to say in a 2008 review of their production of The Light in the Piazza:

"This was my first visit to the Weston Playhouse, a converted 19th-century church located on the village green of a picturesque town that is nestled in the Green Mountains of southern Vermont. The playhouse is an easy two-hour drive from the popular summer theaters of western Massachusetts, and if "The Light in the Piazza" is any indication, its offerings are closely comparable in quality to the work of such better-known troupes as the Berkshire and Williamstown Theatre Festivals. The production values at Weston are as memorable as the performances: Russell Metheny's near-abstract set evokes Florence with clean-lined simplicity, while Andy Einhorn's instrumental ensemble interprets Mr. Guettel's score sensitively (though it sometimes plays too loudly for the unamplified cast). This is, in short, an important revival by an ambitious company, and I look forward to seeing them again."

In a June 2015 article, Seven Days described it as "an acclaimed theater and cabaret whose in-house company consistently attracts professional thespians from around the country". Here is useful entry from the Vermont Encyclopedia. Searches also turn up a variety of stories about the theater in the aftermath of damages suffered during Tropical Storm Irene in 2011, including this Vermont Public Radio story. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment by nominator: Oh wow, that's just awesome, Arxiloxos. Thank you so much! --Shirt58 (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely keep as my searches found results here, here and here and the News sources also mention it is the state's oldest theatre company and, although I shared the questionable solid notability, I think this is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: now that the new information has come to light. --Slashme (talk) 06:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Edinger[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability. The sources include a BBC interview and 21 of his tweets - don't believe this meets WP:RS. Non notable you tuber IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only decent source is the BBC interview, but that isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG IMO. PC78 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of notability concerns, I am worried that User:Gbawden nominated this article for speedy deletion. In my view this article unquestionably does not meet the strict criteria at WP:A7. A7 state "An article about a real person...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines" - being a YouTuber having received high level BBC coverage and having more than 150,000 is a credible claim to significance, irrespective of meeting the stricter criteria at WP:GNG. Speedy, which prevents community input, should only be for the most unambiguous cases. AusLondonder (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we can assume good faith and discuss the article rather than the nominator? PC78 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not failing to assume good faith. I am not arguing the nom acted in bad faith, rather with a lack of competence. AusLondonder (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Couple of BBC sources now and YouTube related sources as well, including Ten Eighty magazine which seems relatively high-quality. AusLondonder (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's got 2 BBC sources now, a mention in mashable, and quite enough coverage and subscribers to denote notability. TwinTelepathy (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. Seems like enough solid sources to establish WP:GNG Roguebluejay (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - Enough sources to pass WP:GNG. The prose does not have much to go with but the BBC and the Ten Eighty coverage make a good case for keeping this. Certainly, more facts can be added to the prose. — Yash! ^(Y) 04:18, 30 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) 21:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cie Arell[edit]

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

Does not meet gng or NBASE John from Idegon (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, It also appears autobiographical.John from Idegon (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than [https://www.google.com/search?q=Cie+Arell+baseball&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=Cie+Arell+baseball this and that's not surprising, there's simply not much for an article yet and there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show he meets the notability standards for baseball players or the GNG.Jakejr (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBASE and WP:GNG, searches turned up nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 30 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) 21:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Han[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion, but the user who did so tacked their nomination onto the first AfD discussion (diff). Below is the rationale for deletion provided. I am presently neutral. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Company may be notable but not CEO. Kavdiamanju (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless this can be mentioned elsewhere as it seems the current sources are the best coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete As always with simple Chinese names there can be multiple people with that exact name, and many more if you just base off the transcription. The first AfD is probably someone/something completely different. But appears that this Han Wei is just an investor on movies say The Moon and the Sun (film) instead of actually working on cinematography. [16][17] (routinal) [18] (more about company) 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tough one to research as per Hisashiyarouin, but I also agree with their assessment. Can't show the notability of this particular person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 30 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 Delete per WP:A10 -- article duplicates existing topic — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Komaali[edit]

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

No indication of the commencement of principal photography. —Vensatry _(ping) 05:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: as the thing can be watched through Amazon Prime, I think it safe to presume that principle filming has commended and completed. Am working on expansion and sourcing now. Will report back in a few. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

title Telugu:(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)

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

WP:INDAFD: Kanmani "OK Kanmani" (variant) "Okay Kanmani" (variant) "Oh Kadhal Kanmani" (variant) "O Kadhal Kanmani" (variant) "Ok Bangaram" (variant) "Mani Ratnam" "Dulquer Salmaan" "Nithya Menon" "Prakash Raj" "Leela Samson"

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A10. After deletion, okay with a redirect of this short searchable title to the existing O Kadhal Kanmani. Apparently the anon IP author was unaware he was writing about a film already released and reviewed... a film which easily meets WP:NF and has numerous reviews. While I appreciate the anon IP's efforts, the stub duplicates an existing topic. I am tagging it for a speedy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and MichaelQSchmidt. Article already exists in the mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 30 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) 21:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Basketballography[edit]

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

I'm not finding anything solid to confirm its existence so it was likely a low-key show and thus unlikely notable and there's no good move target. Notifying author Pepeton. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the article on Andre Aldridge (the host) doesn't mention this show. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Time-filling Biography clone on NBA TV which doesn't hold notability outside of being timeslot spackle. Nate • (chatter) 14:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Can't find anything on search engines to show it meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 30 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) 21:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Melville See[edit]

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

No meaningful content, is only known for being married to Linda McCartney; not notable on his own. Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability isn't inherited, nothing to demonstrate independent notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above editor. Searches turned up nothing to show notability not having anything to do with McCartney. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose rather than moving to one of the family articles as my searches simply found passing coverage for his relationship to Heather and Linda so there's not much for a separate article let alone a better one. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 28 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. Discussion indicates that this could perhaps be retained if rewritten less promotionally. Sandstein 17:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Turrin[edit]

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

Article of a potentially notable person. All the text is copied from their own bio on their webpage. The have released the text under a compatible license however the page is still far to promotional for Wikipedia I believe the best thing to do here is WP:BLOWITUP. and let someone start over with proper sourcing and cut out all the promotional fluff. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've given it a once-over to remove as much fluff as I could and wikify it a little. I think it still almost meets ((BLP-PROD)) - since it's a sliced and diced version of a verbatim copy of an unsourced text. Being a copy doesn't make it sourced, IMO, although it does technically have a source for the film scores section. Storkk (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as this will need familiar attention and I found results at Books, News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Like SwisterTwister, I can find mentions, including, for example, brief descriptions of performances of his works in the New York Times ([19]). It would take a fair amount of work to determine if there is enough out there for notability, but I see enough of a hint that I think it's worth keeping but tagged as needing better references. LaMona (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While most likely notable, the purely promotional tone and intent (copied from the person's own web page), would seem to indicate that it fits WP:TNT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 30 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) 21:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoor Alam[edit]

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

Completing AFD nomination for an IP editor, whose rationale (posted on the article's talk page) is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged page for deletion. Does not seem notable. Appears to be (and speculated in talk page previously) created, researched, and maintained by the subject himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.135.222 (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better coverage and my best results were this. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 30 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 Withdraw and keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Givot[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 03:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR WITH PREJUDICE. THANKS. Quis separabit? 00:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This could be deleted but as News and Books instantly found results for 'The Lady and the Tramp this can be redirected where he is mentioned as part of the top cast. SwisterTwister talk
Keep - meets WP:NACTOR. For older actors, sometimes the engines are not enough. He had significant roles in several notable films, including Paddy O'Day, Beg Borrow or Steal, Young as You Feel, Fiesta (where he is one of the leads), Road to Morocco, Du Barry Was a Lady, Three Sailors and a Girl. He also gets enough mentions in magazines of the period, such as Film Daily, Variety, Motion Picture Herald, Motion Picture Magazine to qualify under WP:BASIC. For example in the second half of 1935 alone he was mentioned in at least 10 articles in Film Daily alone, including two which were more than mere mentions, including a nice review of his performance in Riffraff (1936 film), even though that was a smaller role, even though the article called it a principle role. I do a lot of work on articles of older actors and films, so I knew how to do a particular search on this one. I'd be willing, if it's kept to put it on my watchlist and flesh it out a bit. Probably won't ever get beyond C-class, but could probably make it there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's got a decent number of movie credits, but his vaudeville and Broadway work have been seriously shortchanged. Variety considered him a vaudeville "name" in a couple of issues. I'm going to expand the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had a chance to go over this, I think a WP:TROUT is in order for Quis separabit? for not checking WP:BEFORE - among many other accomplishments, this guy starred in a couple of Broadway shows. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 27 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 17:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singles (Maroon 5 album)[edit]

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

Speedy deletion, article created by blocked user User:Pistolplay, socking as User:Pistolplay3. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a speedy tag to use for that? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the speedy deletion template was removed by Pistolplay3. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If one's the sock of the other, then basically their removal wouldn't be valid, (can't remove speedies of an article that person created) and the speedy could still be done... Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tokyogirl79 would probably be interested in this discussion. She deleted two other articles by Pistolplay3, writing in the edit summary, "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Pistolplay) in violation of ban or block". Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Maroon 5 as this will attract some attention or otherwise should be moved to the band's article. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why this is listed for deletion. It's clearly notable and had already gotten to number six in Japan last week. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Vicéns[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I found no outstandingly good coverage aside from All About Jazz and a few others so this may be enough to simply keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Parts of Allaboutjazz are promotional [20], so care is needed, but it also runs bylined reviews, which both the subject's albums have received. Although I suspect he is more up-and-coming than established, there is probably enough critical attention in the references. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 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 delete. Unopposed deletion. Sandstein 17:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Release[edit]

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

Although the article has eight references, seven are used to support one statement (basically, that the product is mentioned in some books). This probably fails WP:GNG. Little news coverage, and some of the book references are not reliable (eg - self-published works; note that I haven't checked the refs used in the article). Mind matrix 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also note that the user who created the article has made no other edits to Wikipedia. This may or may not be relevant. Mind matrix 22:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but maybe delete for now as although the article is neat and sourced and having reviews is good, this could be better and I'm not seeing it. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted I will never again donate money to Wikipedia. Congratulations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.160.30 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to think that, the article can easily be drafted and userfied to your userspace until coverage is better. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough to support notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 30 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 Edenbridge (band). Consensus is to again redirect back. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Livetime in Eden[edit]

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

No sources or indications of meeting either general notability guidelines or specific guidelines for albums. Had been previously redirected to the band article, but has been recreated. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear; I feel it should once again be redirected, not deleted (i.e. retain history at redirect). However, since it has been recreated once, I want the due process involved in an AFD. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This album article was being redirected to the band's biography on Wikipedia which had insufficient and little information about the album. ONUnicorn has said that it does not have any sources, if you really read the article you can see the source in the bottom of the article. ~KrypteriaIV 21:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrypteriaIV (talk • contribs)

@KrypteriaIV: It has a section labeled "Sources" with an external link to the band's website. That is not a reliable source. Please look at WP:NALBUMS, which gives the criteria an album should meet in order to have a stand alone article. In order to be kept the article should demonstrate that the album meets one or more of the seven criteria listed there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the history of the article you can see that it was not originally redirected to the bands biography, I believe it should be kept as it is right now ~KrypteriaIV 22:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrypteriaIV (talk • contribs)

No, it was originally written as a stand alone article very similar to the current iteration. It was redirected because it didn't meet the criteria at WP:NALBUMS, and re-directing to the band is the normal solution for such albums. Above you complained that the band's article has "insufficient and little information about the album." The solution to that is to add information to that article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources has been added to meet WP:NALBUMS requierments ~KrypteriaIV 14:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrypteriaIV (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as per nom and SwisterTwister. Nothing to show independent notability on the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the People – VOX humana[edit]

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

Not sure why the subject is notable. Fails on WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, no coverage in reliable sources. Official website of this party is a dead link. I do find some references to "Folkets Röst" in Swedish language but I am not sure whether they are reliable or just trivial. The article on Swedish Wikipedia is unreferenced too and official website links to a parked domain. Hitro talk 19:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, there is plenty of coverage in media: http://www.ltz.se/jamtland/harjedalen/vox-humana-tankbar-partner-for-bada-sidor , http://www.tidningenharjedalen.se/medelpad/sundsvall/vox-humana-regiontillhorighet-viktigaste-framtidsfragan , http://www.sveg.se/alliansen-vox-humana-och-h%C3%A4rjedalspartiet-kan-bryta-s-styre , http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=78&artikel=5955094 , http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/jamtland/osakert-lage-i-harjedalen , http://www.op.se/vox-humana-krympte-rejalt-i-harjedalen , http://www.st.nu/medelpad/sundsvall/hon-valjer-sundsvall-framfor-valjarna , http://www.jaktojagare.se/kategorier/aktuellt/flera-sager-nej-till-varg/ , http://www.ltz.se/jamtland/harjedalen/vox-humana-demokratin-ar-satt-ur-spel , http://www.ltz.se/jamtland/harjedalen/vox-humana-kan-bli-tungan-pa-vagen-1 , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/vox-humana-kan-bli-tungan-pa-vagen , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/vox-humana-kritiserar-skolprojekt , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/vox-humana-vill-ha-lekplats-for-pensionarer , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/vox-humana-vill-aktualisera-oversiktsplan , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/sa-tufft-blir-valet-i-harjedalen , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/inget-kyrkoval-for-vox-humana-i-hogdal , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/rattvis-demokrati-vox-humana-sant , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/storslam-i-namndsval-for-minoritetsstyre-1 , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/upplagt-for-historiskt-maktbyte , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/kommunens-sponsring-ifragasatts-2 , http://www.op.se/vh-s-toppnamn-vill-inte-bli-oppositionsrad-jag-valjer-sundsvall , http://www.op.se/jamtland/harjedalen/harjedalen-ska-styras-av-tre-partier-2 , http://www.op.se/blir-vv-sd-eller-rhv-arets-raket , etc. --Soman (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Haven't you populated and crowded your comment with the links from few similar sources... ltz.se op.se and tidningenharjedalen.se... they all look similar websites... Please explain why are they reliable. Hitro talk 20:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ltz.se is Länstidningen, op.se is Östersunds-Posten, i.e. the two main daily newspapers published from Östersund. St.nu is Sundsvalls Tidning. sverigesradio is, well, Sveriges Radio. svt.se is Sveriges Television. Tidningen Härjedalen is a weekly edition in Härjedalen of LTZ. --Soman (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per plenty more of coverage provided by user Soman.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 26 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 17:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanwal Sajal[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing to improve the sourcing, notability or simply overall improvement and this has existed since February 2007 with apparently closest links being two links added in the original. It's possible this exists but with all this detail and not even the slightest good source and no improvement since then, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have found this book source AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as nominator. And that book [21] is probably not a reliable source, seeing that its publisher is Books LLC. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Rainbow unicorn. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:23, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common Cause (alliance)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is not notable and linked to very few articles within Wikipedia. Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent reliable source with in depth coverage. Nothing obivous in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they have a virtually inactive website, with the last news release being 6 years ago. Nothing in the media that I can find even from that time. Not notable at all. NealeFamily (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply found nothing at all to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to fail WP:GNG, although it's hard to go hunting for sources on this name. Combinations with "Commonwealth" and "republican" did not help. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 30 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed[edit]

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

Non notable individual. Article is of no encyclopedic value. Read this bit from a notable news source:

"Elhassan, a native of the Sudan who is now an American citizen, likes to call himself a sheik. He wears a cleric’s flowing white robes and claims hundreds of followers throughout Egypt, Sudan and in the United States. But he is unknown as a scholar or holy man in the state he has called home for two decades. Religious leaders in Texas say they have never heard of Elhassan, including the imam at the mosque where he worships. “This so-called leader, we have never heard of this person,” said Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh, the head of the Islamic Center of Irving. “I believe the whole thing is made up.”

I got this from this website: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ahmed-mohamed-clock-bomb-media-narrative-ian-tuttle

This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. This article should be deleted. Comet1440 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC) — Comet1440 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes I had found that the conservative National Review [22] took a 2011 quotation out of context from Washington Post [23] which itself chose to offer a biased short quote of one sentence made by some unknown named "Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh". Not really impressed by their bending something written elsewhere to meet their authors's conservative agenda, but you have provided more evidence that coverage existed before the unrelated clock incident of his son's, thus showing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are met, so thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This man is pertinent to the issue of staged controversy that seems to be running rampant at this time in our history. He will be mentioned in articles associated with faked outrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goofyfoot2001 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC) — Goofyfoot2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For those who do not fully understand what is going on here, this man is the father of the boy who got in trouble at school for bringing in an object which he said was a homemade clock but others claim is a store bought clock with the case removed, and put in a briefcase, to look like a bomb. Some suspect this man put his son up to getting in trouble to create misplace sympathy for him. Manipulation of the press, public, and in this case, our President, is a matter of great importance and without the Wikipedia article, the public can't easily learn of this man's background to assess the possibility it was all a set up. I beg that no one delete this article - in fact, it should be augmented, not deleted, with all the history of this man that can be properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.6.229 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC) — IP 76.253.6.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per just meeting WP:BASIC and WP:GNG [24] even before his son received news for an unrelated issue itself brought to a contention & drama-filled AFD by a now-blocked sock puppet. I will grant that The SPAs above are correct in that enough topic sourcing is available to expand, and deletion does not serve the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Received significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Three (3) examples of in-depth secondary source coverage from before the clock incident include: The Huffington Post, The Dallas Observer, and The North Dallas Gazette. Since then, has received secondary source coverage from thousands of sources all across our planet, examples at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ..and THIS source is incredibly detailed.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. A guy runs for the Presidential elections in a Country, that certainly does make them notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Cirt establish notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the information in this article very useful. Comfr (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject satisfies general notability due to multiple examples of non-trivial coverage from independent outlets. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:34, 28 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--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Farhan[edit]

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

See WP:NACTOR Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlesss better sourcing can be found as I see no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not reveal anything to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Farhan Khan" "Mohammed Farhan" "फरहान खान"

*Keep per my own searches showing this person as meeting WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] etc. Come on Magog the Ogre, SwisterTwister, and onel5969... if BASIC and GNG are met, we do not go to NACTOR to find weakness. Pardon, but in your WP:BEFORE didn't any of you think check to through WP:INDAFD for this Indian topic?? its a poor stub yes, but for a topic expandable and sourcable a topic notability is found through coverage, and coverage we have. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment felt I need to strike my keep. While yes there IS an actor named "Farhan Khan" who is arguably notable, after comparing the age and career of the notable one with the one written of here, I am now convinced that this existing article is not about the notable one I was defending above. Biggest clue was the picture. Compare this one with the notable one... NOT the same person. I suggest no prejudice should an article be written on the older Farhan Khan. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:55, 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 ~~merge to Medical School of Japan~~. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I meant merge to History of Roman Catholicism in Japan. Thanks to Athomeinkobe for pointing that out! Kharkiv07 (T) 01:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical School of Japan[edit]

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

I'm not entirely convinced if this ever existed as my searches found nothing at all specifically for this (mostly for other related subjects or simply mirrors) and there's not much information to help widen the search. Inviting past users Excirial, DGG and Miyagawa and also Calamondin12 and TheGGoose. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only had time for a quick search, but there are multiple sources that say that the Jesuit missionary Luis de Almeida founded the first medical school in Japan in Kyushu around 1557-8: [32], [33], [34], [35], etc. None of these give an official name, however. Michitaro (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. undue skepticism. I just needs expansion. For some thingso ne search for more than the exact phrase. This is part of a very long history of jesuit work there, of of Japanese reception of Western medical science. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to History of Roman Catholicism in Japan. There isn't enough here to stand alone, and no expansion work has been conducted on it in six years. Miyagawa (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as Miyagawa, unless there is a better target, more specifically related to the Jesuit mission to Japan. I doubt that we would ever get this expanded to be more than a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Roman Catholicism in Japan. If any of the details in the article can be supported by reliable sources, then they can be merged or added to History of Roman Catholicism in Japan, but leaving an unsourced article with no evidence that the school was even called "Medical School of Japan" contravenes the core Wikipedia content policies of verifiability and No original research. --DAJF (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect There is no doubt that there was something equivalent to a Western medical school founded in Kyushu in 16th century Japan by Portuguese Jesuit missionaries. Whether the article is referring to that school or not is unclear because the article lacks specifics as well as sources, and because the sources I found above that confirm the existence of the school do not confirm a name for the school. Ideally, this should be merged to an article like History of medicine in Japan, which exists for some countries, but not for Japan. The next best option would be to merge with an article on Luis de Almeida, but we don't have one on him either (here is the Japanese article: ja:ルイス・デ・アルメイダ). Unless someone wants to create one of those articles, the best option probably is History of Roman Catholicism in Japan. Michitaro (talk) 14:07, 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 and redirect to Anarchism in the United States. Courcelles (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anarchy in the United States (2nd nomination)

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

Page has multiple problems. It is a content fork of Anarchism in the United States. It violates copyright as much of the content is largely copied from this text. It is very poorly sourced, biased and badly written. Vectoor (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio and nevertheless delete as POV fork - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anarchism in the United States. There is not any useful, sourced content here that could be merged to the other article without reducing its quality, so in this case I think a redirect is best, since the two titles are so similar. --Biblioworm 15:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect per Biblioworm). The whole thing seems to be an ESSAY arguing that various things were anarchy, when they were not. Anarchy is about the rejection of law as a principle. This is largely about attempts to set up alternative societies and lawlessness in the wild west. The author who has been COPYVIO-ed would seem to have been trying to fit history to his concept, which is all the wrong way around. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. Unless there is a rock song called "Anarchy in the United States" there is no point to this article and the contents are mostly conjecture and essay like affirmations.--Eduen (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork. Okay to leave a redirect for Anarchism in the United States. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork and a copyvio. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:16, 30 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 Livingston Public Schools. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Pleasant Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school, so redirect to Livingston Public Schools. Was previously a redirect, but a user changed it back saying that the sources establish notability, I have explained why they don't on the talk page. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: For the last AfD I disagreed with you (and other editors). For this school, the references do not pass the coverage and audiences tests of WP:ORG. So redirect. 00:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again to Livingston Public Schools and semi protect. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:49, 27 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) 03:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VoloMedia[edit]

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

Not notable. Created and maintained by SPAs for promotion. Article not neutral, company not well known at all. Rayman60 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News only returned some trivial mentions and some blogs; Newspapers returned zero; Books also had some mentions, but nothing in depth; Scholar actually had some hits, but again nothing in-depth; Highbeam had some brief mentions and press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly trivial, borderline case. Coverage does not appear to be enough to warrant its own article. Jujutacular (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although Books, News, browser and highbeam all found links but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 28 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) 21:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro-Media[edit]

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

Not notable. Created and maintained by SPAs for promotion. Article not neutral, company not well known at all. Rayman60 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches on the engines only returned trivial mentions and press releases. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although I found some links (but mostly PR) at News and browser and a few other links at Highbeam....but nothing for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 28 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.