< 23 September	25 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Helsel[edit]

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

Female MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. She also fails WP:GNG because all of the coverage is just routine sports reporting. Fighting for some minor titles does not show notability.Jakejr (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NMMA. Astudent0 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as the best I found were unsurprising links at Books (one link) and browser (a few more). SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest people by year of death[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Like the recently-deleted List of oldest people by year of birth, there are no reliable sources discussing this particular data set (which is the oldest person that died in a given year). This list is also a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of oldest people and dying in a particular year. Ca2james (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like "Oldest by year of birth" this is meaningless trivia. EEng (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as if this cannot be achieved with some fancy table sorting magic at the List of oldest people (or related places). Delete 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already is at the various "died in year X" articles. :-) CommanderLinx (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Like the other, deleted list, this is badly named (it's the oldest supercentenarian per year) and trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure why it was kept six months ago. Fails WP:V as no reliable sources exist that state "person X was oldest to die in year Y" and is just a trivial list that is already achieved in the various sortable tables in the "died in year X" articles under Template:Longevity. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: um, not that bad as you think. 333 -blue 11:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason I listed on its sibling page (oldest people by year of birth): I don't see much substantial evidence that this is a topic covered in multiple, reliable, third-party sources, which therefore makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia per the notability guidelines. Canadian Paul 16:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and of more interest to "fans" than the wider public. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More or less list cruft. Perhaps an appropriate topic for an appendix to the Guinness Book of World Records. Carrite (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft aswell as unsourced. –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Sclerosis Research Institute[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a promotional item. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice, pending application of preponderance of (possible) secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 06:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadiq El Fitouri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously speedily deleted so the first AfD was procedurally closed, still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into User:GiantSnowman/Sadiq El Fitouri which has been in my sandbox since February 2015. Not currently notable. Giant Snowman 21:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Heck, it's your sandbox, what prevents you? Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as an international player. Giant Snowman 09:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. The subject fails the football specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully professional league, nor has he played senior international football. No indication of his receiving enough significant independent media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Articles about this type of subject are usually stubby with little worth keeping, so normally I'd advocate deletion. But this is a well-developed article, so I'd suggest userfying to creator's userspace, which they appear to have done for themselves already, pending Mr El Fitouri becoming notable at some future date. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep per Michael. Thank you for doing the WP:BEFORE background checking that the rest of us clearly didn't bother with and should have. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like he meets WP:NFOOTBALL having appeared in three matches for the Libya national team. See here. – Michael (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has appeared in matches for Libya during the 2017 Africa Cup of Nations qualification, thus meeting WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because of new evidence Spiderone 10:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played for the Libyan National team.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Recommend early closure per WP:SNOW based on evidence. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. This is also the first time that I've seen @GiantSnowman: make a keep vote. Congrats :) Inter&anthro (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NFOOTBALL due to playing with Libya in the Africa Cup of Nations. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:04, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Von Sydow[edit]

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

Promotional article by a paid editor. Completely fails to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the creator of the page and have already disclosed my affiliations with the subject. I request to judge the page based on merit. Eric is a renowned pick up artist and dating and relationship coach. Some of the references other than those mentioned on the page are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Along with it he has also been featured on abc, WSJ, USA Today, Cosmopolitan and Playboy Radio (Source: DSR). Mr RD (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I intend for it to be judged on merit. Those links you provided are either mentions in RS (i.e. not substantial coverage; 1 & 8) or unreliable/primary sources (the rest). They're of no use for demonstrating notability. Which RS states he is 'renowned'? SmartSE (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NewYork Times link solely discusses his work with focus on him. Here are a couple of others considered reliable in the field: [9], [10], [11] which proves his importance. Mr RD (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sufficient coverage in independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I thought the sources might cover this. Then I started cleaning up the article and realized I was performing BOGO work for the paid editor and his client. Here is a great example of the result of a conflict of interest, even a declared one, leading to bad content. — Brianhe (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As inline citations which I have added to the article. Also his works are all self published, the audio through cdbaby, which allows artists to sell directly to the public, The Seductive Secrets of Erotic Entertainers through bookbaby, the sister co. to cdbaby, and Metawhore through Dark Planet Publishing.

As for the other refs (mentioned above):

is the same as ref 2 in the article;
is the same as ref 1 in the article (I thought this was supposed to 'other than those mentioned on the page'?);
self published by Brian Fearless (who?);
an article for a site that publishes mix of articles by staff writers and UGC - this is a UGC article;
blog;
if it looks like spam and it smells like spam then it is probably... you can guess the rest;
blog;
blog / website that tries to sell you stuff;
rehash of this article which tells us a load of non-verifable guff about the non-notable Michelle McGee;
blogtalkradio.com, thrill96's UGC which does not 'prove his importance'. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see how this person has gotten any significant coverage. Many ordinary people have been mentioned in passing in the New York Times or Daily News. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons listed above. Not enough independent sources to establish notability. Fuzchia (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of the sources provided are reliable, but the coverage is trivial. We need substantive reliable coverage, of which I am not seeing any. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a lack of reliable sources that substantially cover the subject. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, remove self-published/blog/non-reliable sources and this does not meet WP:GNG.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 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 Lists of women#Film and television. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of women in films[edit]

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

What is this exactly? I came across it just fixing redirects and piping after a move on a fairly non-notable actress, and found this fanboy style piece that has no criterion for inclusion and is nowhere near in scale where it should be as per its stated intention. JesseRafe (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft with no clear criterion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not describe a notable "collection". Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've already got Lists of women#Film and television, which this duplicates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sneaky Pirate. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another vote to delete per the Pirate. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. wp:Listcruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Lists of women#Film and television Similar rationale as NRP but different !vote. Title makes sense as a redirect and WP:CHEAP. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hisashiyarouin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per SNUGGUMS and NinjaRobotPirate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of women#Film and television per 野狼院ひさし (Hisashiyarouin). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, again per Hisashiyarouin. It does seem like a phrase someone may want to look for and there is already a section around here that it can sensibly direct to. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Lists of women#Film and television, and I agree with nom, confused as to what this is trying to be. — Cirt (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of women#Film and television - Pointless as it stands but redirect is imho better than deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Mellupe[edit]

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

Person does not appear to be notable by our standards. In the article history you will find a much more promotional version with a long resume, but it's verified only by reference to Island6, the artist's "patron". Independent secondary sourcing for this artist, I cannot find, besides this CNN piece which has a few paragraphs on her; this, from "Time Out Shanghai", is not accessible right now, but that website is basically a tourism portal/site, not a secondary source. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC

Delete slightly more notable subject than some of the other pages that make up the island6 walled garden discussed at COIN. However, as Drmies says, sources are relatively weak. I would say it's also WP:TOOSOON. Someone has also just reverted a bunch of good fatih edits and dropped a classic island6-style linkfarm into the main text of the article, which makes me suspicious about WP:OWN and WP:PROMOTION issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media Theorist (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BMK (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two sources from four or five years ago are not enough to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Miniapolis 22:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete From a cursory search I found a link to the Latvian President visiting one of Zane Mellupe's Exhibitions during a state visit to China [12], [13], I believe from the photo's it is the same Art Street featured in CNN [14]; Her latest work [15] is a part of the official programme of events to celebrate 40 years of EU/China diplomacy [16] and has been reviewed by TimeOut (Magazine) [17], I respectfully disagree with Drmies that TimeOut is "basically a tourism portal/site", as per wikipedia's own definition of TimeOut (magazine) [18] it is a Culture, Entertainment, and Event's Guide magazine with a rich history of providing cultural guidance to young urban people, to not acknowledge this is a dis-service. I found many Latvian and Scandinavian links, most notably her selection as only one of seven artists in the 2015 National Latvian Photography Yearbook [19]. I also found links in prominent Baltic, Scandinavian and Russian Art site 'ArTerritory' [20] including her exhibition at Art Paris 2013 [21]. A search of Art Paris also found a huffington post article for Art Paris 2012 featuring her [22], and I found her on their offical site [23]; I can see she has been written about in printed publications such as Pipeline [24] but they don't have online links; I also found her on ArtslanT [25], exhibiting in Brussels [www.artslant.com/global/artists/show/96879-zane-mellupe] [26]; I also found several Chinese language links that mention her work [27], [28], [29]. I am certain there are more, they may not be in English but I think they show that although she may not be a globally renowned artist at the moment she is one of the most prominent young Latvian Artists and she should be viewed as notable through the lens of Latvian Art, she is also working in the worlds fastest growing but most difficult to navigate arts space (China). She could have a latvian language page but since she is an international artist I think an English language page is most suitable. lets not be rash because of Island6's misbehaviour. Re-edited to sign it, my apologies. Deftlyjeff (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor had one contribution in January 2015 before commenting here. BMK (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Here in Latvia, she is quite well-known artist and curator, there are numerous articles in Latvian about her, she is one of the first Latvians to move to China and .[30],[31], [32], [33], [34]. Here i found some articles in English [35], other are in Russian or Latvian. She also did interviews with important Chinese artists (according to their wikipedia page) about censorship, [36] [37]. akjel (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor's account was created today and has no other edits. BMK (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, but this blizzard of refs ignore the requirements of the GNG, which holds that the subject must receive "significant coverage," in detail, which is ABOUT the subject, in multiple reliable sources. The subject being named dropped in a dozen photo captions doesn't count. The Latvian president visiting a gallery that the subject founded doesn't count. Quotes from the subject in an article about the Shanghai arts scene can't count. A photo of a piece of art by her on Some Website doesn't count. Interviews of other people BY the subject don't count. Dropped CV bios don't count. Press releases of upcoming events don't count. (Google Translate's most helpful in identifying the previous three.) Certainly broken links don't count. Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Do Not Delete~~ Comment Okay, here are links to serious Latvian magazines that have featured her, 'Foto Kvartals' [38] and here is another one interviewing her, 'Studija', [39]. Thing is these magazines don't keep online copies, but if anyone had thought about actually doing some research of their own they would have found downloadable PDF copies of the full feature editorials about her online, here 'Foto Kvartals Zane Mellupe Feature' [40] and here, 'Studija Zane Mellupe Feature Article' [41]. These are articles that are explicitly about her, giving her significant coverage, written by someone else in respectable art news sources. These combined with the links to features the respected Baltic art website ArTerritory (above) alone show she is a Latvian Artist worthy of note. Let me ask you, do you really think the president of your country would come and visit your business if you were not noteworthy? I guarantee I can find more. The thing is, everyone here is talking about sources not being reputable and needing links, but are people aware that not everything is so clearly linked and so easy to find online? Infact, lots is not online, the act of verifying someone being noteworthy takes effort and research because we don't check their websites for WP:OWN and WP:PROMOTION and so noone here even considered that her website might be a good source of verifiable information? Deftlyjeff (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cast multiple !votes. You can comment as much as you wish, but you can only !vote once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete: either vanity spam or resume. Quis separabit? 15:45, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kyre[edit]

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

This recently deceased person fails multiple checks for notability. He was part of a Youtube comedy trio Cyndago that was not notable, and he was associated with a notable youtuber Markiplier. This notability cannot be inherited either. He fails even the musician notability requirements. WP:BASIC WP:BAND WP:ORGSIG He is only known for his suicide that led into a recent disbandment of that comedy trio. WP:SINGLEEVENT Furthermore, this article is very heavily relying on primary sources that are not independent from this person, or from his friends. Ceosad (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 260,000+ subscribed youtube channel is not notable? 68.113.249.38 (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it is not. Notability means a different thing in Wikipedia. See: WP:GNG. Briefly said, the major issue here is the serious lack of any third-party sources on Cyndago. If I could have found at least a few of them, I might have just proposed renaming this article to Cyndago. In my opinion most of the information about him belongs to Markiplier's article. These guidelines are related: WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS. Has any newspaper ever covered them? Have they ever won an award? Do any interviews exist? Ceosad (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WEBCRIT, that was what I was looking for when I was told he has "sufficient notability" to pass WP:ENT. — Wylie pedia 07:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it better now with some more reliable articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.127.229 (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you replaced the Facebook source with another that has nothing on it but the entire Facebook post? — Wylie pedia 13:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, it seems he is more notable for his death than for what he did prior. It's also clear that he and Cyndago can't inherit notability from Markiplier. That doesn't leave much. clpo13_(talk) 22:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IDK why --Planecrashexpert (talk) 22:04, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Pincott[edit]

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

WP:POLITICIAN only confers notability to elected politicians who have served at least provicewide, so a ward councillor does not qualify. Nothing here satisfies the WP:GNG. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, I had not been aware of that. I looked a little further and also found [[42]]: "City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas..." I've been involved in a project that, in part, aims to surface additional information about Calgary City Councillors, and would like to be able to continue to add additional information to this, and all the other [entries I've worked on]. Thanks for the consideration! Ppival (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the current councillors are already listed at the parent article Calgary City Council. This sub-article essentially repeats that but also includes additional information about historical election results for this councillor only; it would perhaps make good sense to include all the historical results on the parent article or a single sub-article. The UK parliamentary constituenciy articles have adopted that approach - see, for example, Torbay (UK Parliament constituency). RichardOSmith (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; fails the GNG, fails WP:POLITICIAN. "Internationally famous metropolitan areas" generally encompasses the Torontos and Montreals of the world, and tends to leave out metro areas like Calgary's, the 68th largest metro area in North America. Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant found, just a newish politician on the city level.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Shannon (politics)[edit]

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

Mainly a vanity page edited by what is likely the subject himself. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, having only run unsuccessfully for a state office. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Had a job at a newspaper, but no evidence of any awards or being widely cited among his peers. Ditto for trying to pass WP:AUTHOR. Only sources are "know your candidate" pieces from a 3 month time frame. All in all, probably a nice guy, but not a notable one. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources beyond that which all candidates receive. However, it's possible my searches were too strict, as I was attempting to filter out all the false positives. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Even if we kept the article, it needs so much copyediting that it really needs to be started from scratch. For example, the article could be read as stating that he ran away from home at the age of 12. It is also unclear what his bona fide journalism credentials might be. He fails WP:POLITICIAN by a mile. FWIW, we grew up near each other in the 1970s Bronx. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gemsona[edit]

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

No reliable sources found featuring the use of this possibly fan-made term and concept. TheGGoose (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I found nothing better than this, this and this. Notifying recent users Ayub407 and RichardOSmith. SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love Steven Universe, but this isn't notable. Belongs maybe on a fan wiki, not Wikipedia. Fuzchia (talk) 22:30, 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 move to draft space. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 13:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article can now be found at Draft:Southern Halo (band). Kharkiv07 (T) 13:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Halo (band)[edit]

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

Tagged with ((notability)). I dream of horses (T) @ 16:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 16:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 16:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't agree with the nominator that "Tagged with ((notability))" is a valid reason for deletion (there are over 60,000 such articles). However, this band does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria outlined in WP:BAND and most of the references are not independent of the subject. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reputable sources provided, and none of the sources provided speak to notability. 1st reference is self-published, 2nd doesn't mention them, 3rd doesn't even provide enough information to unambiguously identify a source, 4th is just a calendar entry. WP:TOOSOON. ubiquity (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: There are 10 sources, several awards won, a radio single (Music Row is not a calendar entry; it's a genre-based magazine), a music video playing across all country music TV/online stations, and notable names surrounding the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JIS130 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If consensus is to delete, I urge the closing admin to incubate the article back to the Draft: namespace instead of delete it outright. Yes, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, it is not improbable that the band will become notable under WP:BAND #2 or #11 once its single is released. To that end, we're better off to have the text to be working on, rather than having to start from scratch. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy as I found nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dental board[edit]

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

Unreferenced and lacking in detail Rathfelder (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be expanded, but not deleted. I searched and found the American Dental Association calls them "dental boards" and list the ones in all 50 states. [43] This is a real thing, and certainly encyclopedic. Dream Focus 18:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good potential here to form an encyclopedic and educational page for our readers and editors, alike. — Cirt (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good stub. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bordersdown[edit]

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

Article topic furthermore lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It's currently unreferenced and had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search (only hits were in comments sections). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. – czar 14:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NWEB. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be referenced / linked by Gamerankings as NTSC-uk.com http://www.gamerankings.com/sites/785-ntsc-uk/index.html, but then the domain name was hijacked and it had to be relaunched as Bordersdown. The NTSC-uk.com domain recently expired (many years later), so it was repurchased by the Bordersdown team, but too hard to go back to the old name, so now it's just a redirect. I don't think there's a need for a wiki page for Bordersdown and it should be deleted. --Charlesr (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing on searches to show that it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive health insurance (Maine)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article was created long before the idea of citations came along. But everything I ever wrote in this article came right now of reliable sources. So just tag the article for needing citations. Kingturtle = (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - I added sources, expanded the article, and removed the "citations needed" banner. The article still needs a lot of work, and there are still a few unsourced assertions, but this is certainly not an article that should be put on the chopping block. Indeed, a cursory google search would have turned up numerous useful sources, some of which I have added to this article. I should also note that Wikipedia's deletion policy states that "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page"(see WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well done. — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mañil[edit]

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

If notable, should be merged into the 1859 uprising article. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is not good. See WP:REVENGE. Vrac (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith, and that thing you cited is only an essay and not a guideline. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty hard to assume good faith after you've already threatened to nominate articles of other users you are in a dispute with [44] and called this article's creator a d**che. [45] Vrac (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith? In only one day User:Diego Grez-Cañete nominated eleven articles of the same user. This is unacceptable. --War ko ^talk 02:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is unacceptable to have articles, of dubious relevance, hanging around. Not the other way round. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:41, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Kindermann[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no references. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:12, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venacio Coñoepán[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, just another chief in a 22 year long war. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:12, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Marileo Colipí[edit]

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

Just another chief in a 22-year-long war. If he is notable, the content should be put into the 1881 uprising article. Def not worthy of a separate article. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:11, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leopoldo López Escobar[edit]

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

Not notable academician, has not been reviewed extensively (there is no assertion of notability either). Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:10, 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. Article's not amazing but judging by sources provided notability is certainly there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo E. Latcham[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable, other than writing about Mapuches. Only one reference does not provide sufficient detail on him, only passing mentions. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Spanish version of the article shows enought notability of the subject. The right template to use is Template:Expand language. --War ko ^talk 02:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Spanish Wikipedia. Also, the version you cite, although longer, does not provide references that could help with this, English-language version. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched Ricardo Latcham on JSTOR, and he is cited in several publications, including English journals: Fredrick B. Pike's Chile and the United States 1880-1962: A Dissenting View (The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Aug., 1966), pp. 283-287); Reviewed Work: Pedro de Valdivia: Conquistador of Chile by Ida Stevenson Weldon Vernon (Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 17, No. 2 (May, 1948), pp. 195-197); Ritual and the Use of Musical Instruments during the Apogee of San Pedro (de Atacama) Culture (A. D. 300 to 900) (The Galpin Society Journal, Vol. 46 (Mar., 1993), pp. 26-68), and many others. --War ko ^talk 03:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, let's see what others think. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is the foremost archaeologist in Chile in the early 20th century [46][47]. Clearly a defining figure in Chilean archaeology. Sietecolores (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Villalba[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:08, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Guevara[edit]

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

No assertion as to why an Army officer should be notable, other than writing two books, claim which is anyway unreferenced. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:08, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Edwards[edit]

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

Unreferenced for over a year. Notability is not clear (no assertion of it within the article) Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You are nominating articles without searching about them. I expected more thoroughness in your nomination. Let me tell you that this person was Minister of External Relations, Education and Finance. So, it is possible to complete the article, because he is (was) very notable. --War ko ^talk 03:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but besides the fact Alberto Edwards is a pretty common name (in publications, I mean), the article did not make any assertion about his notability. The Spanish article, however, does contain such material. The nomination should be considered withdrawn only after the article is expanded, because, once again, it does not assert his notability. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:18, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Land of poets[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NOT Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chile#Literature. Reasonable search term, but a separate article is unwarranted. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:44, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creamfinance[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Viktorijagor (creator, SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although News and browser found some results, there's nothing to suggest better but feel free to draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone knowledgeable in Czech can provide evidence for notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show this meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:40, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hernán Trizano[edit]

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

Just another army officer, no notability whatsoever. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:04, 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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topanga Canyon Blues Festival[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient independent coverage for this to pass WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable event in Blues and music circles. Blues fests are a hard one to gauge at times. Many notable artists have and continue to attend this event. It has been running for 32 years now. Karl Twist (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Major blues acts such as Etta James, Willie Dixon, Otis Rush, Big Joe Turner, Lowell Fulson, Junior Wells and Pee Wee Crayton have made appearances there.[48]. There's also Jimmy "Preacher" Ellis [49] There's Paul Butterfield, William Clarke, Linda Hopkins, Philip Sayce and Roy Gaines. All of them have appeared there.[50]. And there's Chick Willis [51], Phillip Walker [52], Jimmy Johnson [53] and Eddie Clearwater [54]. A festival attracting that high calibre of Blues acts is no mean feat. There's probably a load more of notable artists that have appeared. As I said, Blues fests are a bit more difficult thank others. Even more difficult than Jazz fests. Interesting article about the background of the fest in the Topanga Messenger Vol.31 No. 11 [55]. Bit more research on this one will no doubt bring up more evidence of it's notability. Karl Twist (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep as although I haven't closely looked at the current sources, the article appears acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, As the festival shows no sign of slowing down or ceasing at any time in the near future, every year it will continue to attract highly notable and legendary blues artists and performers. No doubt the patronage will increase. So in addition to my Keep vote, I'd like to add that this also needs to be taken into account. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:00, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shuai Xiaobing[edit]

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

Although I found some results here, here, here, here, here and here, I'm not entirely sure if he's fully notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears not to pass WP:PROF, but that may be less relevant than WP:GNG as he does not appear to be an academic any more. Regardless, I also didn't find any evidence that he passes GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable based on current content and available resources. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing on searches to show they meet notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:34, 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. We have a majority for keeping, but not quite consensus, considering the "merge" opinions. Perhaps there should be an RFC about this type of list in general Sandstein 18:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Nobel laureates[edit]

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

There ahve been three separate deletion debates for articles on "list of [religion] Nobel laureates", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (3rd nomination). All have closed as delete, all have been followed not long after by someone re-creating the list. The problem is the same every time: a trivial intersection of arbitrary categories with irresolvable problems of WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There also list's about List of Jewish Nobel laureates and List of Muslim Nobel laureates and List of Hindu Nobel laureates. the list is well sourced and neutral.

And this list is not an original research since been several studies or infortmation about the religions of Nobel prize laureates as the book 100 Years of Nobel Prizes by Baruch A. Shalev, and cientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman, and Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, and Comparative Religion For Dummie by William P. Lazarus and Mark Sullivan, and The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige by Burton Feldman and others.--Jobas (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoise were also deleted and then re-created, and the WP:SYN means it's not "well-sourced and neutral". Guy (Help!) 14:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but not single word about these list. the list moslty sourced by the Nobel Foundation. which is a reliable source, alot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is going latley.--

Strong delete: I do not see any relation between the religious beliefs of one individual and his career or the fact he has won a Nobel prize. I fully agree with the arguments of the proponent and I have furthermore the feeling that this kind of list falls within the scope of WP:OR. Beside all articles based on the pattern "list of [religion] Nobel laureates should be deleted as well. --Lebob (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)--Lebob (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both list List of Jewish Nobel laureates and List of Muslim Nobel laureates is still and no one ask for delet it. wonder why.Jobas (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both of those articles have been deleted before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), in which the lists of atheist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, and Muslim Nobel laureates were all deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And they have appeared again. Methinks there is no consensus, except temporary ones. But this is not a case of fringe theory or POV pushing. I see no need to delete what some people find useful, even if others think it's a waste of time. There are plenty of articles I would have no interest in whatever, but why should that prevent or overturn their existence? Breadth is one of the benefits WP can offer. Let's use that. Evensteven (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that some people interested about these kind of list. It's also been several studies or infortmation about the religions of Nobel prize laureates as the book 100 Years of Nobel Prizes by Baruch A. Shalev, and cientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman, and Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, and Comparative Religion For Dummie by William P. Lazarus and Mark Sullivan, and The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige by Burton Feldman and others.--Jobas (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What would be POV is deleting this and keeping the others. People are interested in such lists, as their history shows. Other people really don't like them. I don't actually see an inherent WP:SYN issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is plenty of interest in lists of this type. It would be POV to remove this one only (as bias against its specific topic), and POV to remove them all (as bias against such lists in general). Yet no list promotes a POV itself, nor do the lists jointly. That there is a continual campaign for/against such lists is merely a reflection of differences among editors. But it does no harm to WP to have the lists present, and does not violate WP:NPOV. Let them all remain and be useful to those who wish to use them. WP:SYN is being used as an excuse to get rid of them, but lists are by their nature highly resistant to synthesis, since they list things only, and don't seek to analyze or draw conclusions from the raw data they present. And now we get cries of WP:OR too, just because the list has documented sources. That is not what WP:OR means. Evensteven (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lists for other religions and for atheists should also be restored. This is not a trivial intersection. As an analogy, consider lists of Nobel laureates by country. Nationality is arguably less important than religion, but, for example, the number of German Nobel laureates dropped abruptly after 1914, a fact that has significance in the history of science. The religious beliefs of scientists and the way these change over time are also significant.

Articles are supposed to be deleted as a last resort when they cannot be improved. If some of the laureates do not have a source that establish their religion then they should not be included on any list, but the sourced entries should be kept. I don't see a POV issue because the list merely states beliefs. It doesn't argue that Christians are better at science or worse, and doesn't even compare laureates with the global population of the time. It might be a solution to merge to List of Nobel laureates by religion, and this would facilitate discussing those that do not have a clear source. Roches (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I can't see any justification for having List of Jewish Nobel laureates and List of Muslim Nobel laureates without having List of Christian Nobel laureates. But I don't see any reason for separate lists and Roches' suggestion above to merge into List of Nobel laureates by religion is entirely reasonable. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. There is significant debate over whether religious belief is compatible with scientific work, therefore lists like this are useful. Compiling a list such as this, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates and List of atheist Nobel laureates is not original research; it's compiling existing research. I think Gnome de plume is right that it would be best to have one list for all religions, and some of the text in the article needs to be fixed. But deleting the article isn't necessary. Argyriou (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: since there are List of Jewish Nobel laureates and List of Muslim Nobel laureates and List of Hindu Nobel laureates I see no objection to keep. This is an FYI page on wikipedia and people who study the intersection of science and religion may be interested in such info especially considering that some popular works seem to use Nobel demographics to comment on religion and science for good or bad.Mayan1990 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayan1990 Not only that some people becouse intersection of science and religion. It's also been several studies or infortmations about the religions of Nobel prize laureates as the book 100 Years of Nobel Prizes by Baruch A. Shalev, and cientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman, and Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, and Comparative Religion For Dummie by William P. Lazarus and Mark Sullivan, and The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige by Burton Feldman and others.--Jobas (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No objections in principle to merging, but I would question the practicality. The size of this particular list is quite long already, and has 480 references. I can't say it makes sense to make a Winnebago list (throw in everything including the kitchen sink), just in order to keep the number of lists down. Evensteven (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with user Evensteven, the List of Christian Nobel laureates is already long beside the List of Jewish Nobel laureates is long too with 263 references.--Jobas (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sound arguments of Mayan1990. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. samtar ^(msg) 08:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unrelated intersection of facts, specifically the sort of thing discouraged by list guidelines. Besides, this is NOT the best way to handle this information. If we want to include information about the religion of Nobel laureates, why not simply add a field to the main lists themselves. Simple elegant solution, and having only one article to find ask relevant information is better than having several. --Jayron 32 12:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only because it is hard to argue to delete this one when we have lists for Muslim, Jewish and Hindu laureates (I'm pretty sure there have been Japanese - presumably Buddhist laureats as well) but faith-by-birth or culture may not be as unrelated as Jayron32 and others assert, at least, not if we consider Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Jewish as cultures or civilizations. Serious scholars do argue that civilizational values correlate with or produce differential types of achievement. So I can see a potential use for this kind of list - Aside from the simple Lutheran pride type thing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC) 05:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reinstate the atheists and other religions. Nobel Prizes are so significant that a number of rules that apply elsewhere do not apply to them. Religion may well be irrelevant in the case of the scientific Nobel prizes, but quite significant in the motivation of the winner for the literature and peace prizes, possibly even economics. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 2 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 Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Mariotte[edit]

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

None of the sources given include the name of this supposed person, neither does a google search turn up anything other than the Wikipedia page. Is listed as a reference in the Flag of Japan article claiming that the pre-1800 flag of Japan showed a "Hammer and sickle on a white field". Sounds like advanced vandalism. ZgB (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion of this page. You guys are just trying to pick on me. Robert Ian Green (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to the deletion of this page. Stop picking on a newcomer. Keith Takahashi (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and possibly non-existant. I've tried all the "Find sources" links and can find no sources for this person. This is very odd if he is a published author and academic, as you would expect to be able to find his books or articles he published. In order to show he is notable you need to have reliable sources that discuss him in some detail. Book sources can be used but should have an ISBN number, or link to where we can find it (on WorldCat, a massive catalog of books held in libraries around the world, for example) Silverfish (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A big goose egg from JSTOR, Newspapers.com, and OCLC. Highly doubtful that an actual historian with such a unique surname would go 0-fer in those places. The fact that this is used as an in-link to a hoax article indicates that a walled garden is likely. It is probably time to examine the entire edit history of the creator. I have flagged as a hoax and urge speedy deletion as a probable hoax and absolutely certain failure of GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax per Carrite. The only sources directly relating to Mariotte are books supposedly written by him, which can be found nowhere. clpo13_(talk) 03:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ban Carrite and Clpo13 and do not delete. Bark Bark Dog (talk) 10:10, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Burke at Jazz Café[edit]

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

Non-notable event. A two-night stand at a performance venue, no matter how notable the artist, is really not a notable event. It's not a tour, it's a single gig. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better than some links at News and browser and if this had been a more significant event, I would've suggested moving to Alexandra Burke where this is mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in searches to show notability. Rarely is a single performance notable enough for its own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: blatant promotionalism. Quis separabit? 04:37, 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 speedy delete. JMHamo (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadiq El Fitouri[edit]

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

Recreated after being deleted by PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into User:GiantSnowman/Sadiq El Fitouri which has been in my sandbox since February 2015. Not currently notable. Giant Snowman 12:19, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wich Stand[edit]

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

insufficient evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sorry to disagree DGG, as we often do with cultural events and buildings, but there is one excellent source, one good one, declaration of it being a landmark by local authorities, and some misc. comments, plus the info I just added. I also added prose and links showing it was renown architect Eldon Davis that designed the building. There is a primary link (added), and searching shows a lot of interest by 3rd parties, while not passing WP:RS, does indicate cultural significance. I think the newspaper links and such push it just past the WP:GNG bar here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep as although I haven't searches this, it seems to satisfy GNG and seems locally well known and notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added additional references for the building's notability as a surviving example of Googie style and another book reference to a released Beach Boys song reflecting the restaurant's place in early 1960's history. It's still a stub and can use some more work, but the subject is clearly notable. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:54, 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 merge to Blue (2009 film)#Music. IMHO it wouldn't make much sense to merge in to the Kylie one as it'd just look out of place, Seeing as there's a few lines on the song on"Blue 2009" it would make more sense to Merge there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chiggy Wiggy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG for no multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. Also notability is not inherited; not all songs of Kylie Minogue are notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kylie Minogue singles discography § Other appearances. I found some sources (e.g. [56], [57]), but not enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blue (2009 film). --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:47, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tollywood Most Desirable Actor[edit]

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

No Sources given. Can vary to a great extent depending on the jury. Multiple sources(Other award ceremonies) can have different results. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced fancruft. particular designation is not covered by reliable sources as necessary to meet WP:GNG -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yikes. In researching the names listed as "Board Commitee" this seems related to the Kolkata International Film Festival, but the title is improper. With sources, this might be included in an artrticle on Kolkata International Film Festival awards. WP:TNT. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:FANCRUFT - nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 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. Consensus is that this is original research. Sandstein 18:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Body Theory[edit]

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

I was looking through this article and that buzz it's caused including at the no original research noticeboard and thought an AfD may be necessary to evaluate this article. Notifying author Eklingdas and users Cordless Larry, Bgwhite (not sure if you've seen this AfD by now, I'm now noticing you removed some info and you commented about it therefore you may be interested) and Shrikanthv. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ery nice essay, but it's original research. Every individual statement in the article can probably be verified, but putting it together is WP:SYNTHESIS. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis (and possibly a hoax). The term "big body theory" returns precisely zero results on Google Scholar. "Big body" barely appears in the titles of the sources or in the quotes in the references section, and "big body theory" does not appear at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passes WP:DUCK as a blatant but well written hoax. Fiddle Faddle 07:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of wp:syn , zero notability Shrikanthv (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But I want to comment that the theory that a large enough company or other organization that has a celluar structure should be viewed as akin to a living organism is a topic that exists and has been debated, just not under this name (and certainly not using all of this original research). The closest wiki article that I can think of that touches on this is the one for Friedrich Hayek's "spontaneous order" concept, but that's a crude fit and that page there needs a lot of work anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that insight, CoffeeWithMarkets. While I can't say that I understood everything in the article under discussion, I did get the sense that it at least had some basis in scholarship, so it's good to have this confirmed and to get a view from someone who is familiar with the literature. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails the WP:N and appears to be hoax. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, is there a Wait a minute option? Sorry to arrive late, but am in rustic India and connectivity is iffy. I am the principal author of this page and a Wiki editing novice so all of this is new to me including the implications of many of the acronyms. "Hoax", "Truthfulness" and "Factual Accuracy" I do understand, however, and would appreciate a bit more detail. The piece may have its problems, but not in those categories. So where is all this truth disputing and accuracy question going on? Is it possible to visit to present a defense? Eklingdas (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Eklingdas, if you want to explain why you think the article should be kept, you should do so here. A key concern is that there don't appear to be sources that discuss big body theory, as a Google search demonstrates. Perhaps you could explain where the idea comes from? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the earliest public discussion the "Big Body" term appeared in was the March 2000 colloquium cited. Googling "Big Body Heuristics" will connect to that. In any case, the quotes I posted to show its use and currency were subsequently deleted by someone as "unnecessary". I have provisionally restored them, largely to ground this discussion and demonstrate this is not a solipsistic fantasy. In general though the attempt of the piece was/is to represent all the rigorous organismic appreciations of corporate entities that are occurring now whether or not the cited subjects are using that exact vocabulary. Given the evident corporate domination of our societies today that organismic perspective seemed both notable and relevant, both as a socio-political topic of concern & discussion and a true evolutionary artifact. What puzzles me and prompted this contribution is the total absence of Wikipedia contributions to our understanding of this supersession though WP is supposed to be a living mirror of our era. As noted in the discussion above the closest ref is the "spontaneous order" piece, which is not exactly revelatory. Big Body socio-political preeminence is not a partisan issue or even a debatable topic today so the lack of Wiki contributions to our understanding of the phenomenon were/are of real concern. I know all of you here are committed to the integrity of WP and it is a truly blessed creation, but as a living record of our past and present, should it not also address this evolutionary turning? As for the cited sources that do not explicitly use the BB terminology, they are at least recognizing the organismic aspects of these bodies and trying to draw useful conclusions. I would have been happy enough if another page had addressed this phenomenon and I could just have made helpful inclusions. But here we have the most profound emergent phenomenon of our times and our people's encyclopedia really has nothing to say about it. Regarding the inaccurate, untruthful and hoax charges that are now emblazoned across the top of the page, would the accusers please offer some details? Oh, and it's now 6:30 AM here and Eid is beginning, meaning the mosques are all cranking their PA systems up and we're about to lose electricity. Will continue this tomorrow...Eklingdas (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting perview may be, but please refer to wp:fringe there may be many theories and also many possibility of permutations and combinations of existing theories but that does not mean that we have to make it notable through wiki as it amounts to WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, would suggest to draft a paper in some journals and once its notable then I see no problem in adding this here , also I do not understand what the topic has to do with being an Indian ? Shrikanthv (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikanthv, this has nothing to do with ethnicity, was just indicating the communication challenges of our location, like the frequent brown-outs and the 16-hr network outage last night. Re your comment if you do know of other existing theories covering this turf, I would sincerely appreciate some pointers. Also would ask, since I really don't know, if the primary litmus of Notability here is peer-reviewed papers? Eklingdas (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eklingdas, I think the problem with the article is demonstrated by your statement that: "In general though the attempt of the piece was/is to represent all the rigorous organismic appreciations of corporate entities that are occurring now whether or not the cited subjects are using that exact vocabulary". This would be acceptable in an essay or scholarly publication, but on Wikipedia it is called synthesis and not allowed. If there isn't a coherent body of literature on something called "big body theory", we can't have an article that brings together several different ideas under that heading. You also write about Wikipedia's "contributions to our understanding", but note that Wikipedia isn't supposed to make original contributions to knowledge. All it does is report what reliable sources say about subjects, and there don't appear to be any reliable sources that establish that "big body theory" exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Please note my synthesis question below, and regarding your observation "Wikipedia isn't supposed to make original contributions to knowledge" I thought the use of the term by a number of reputable figures in a semi-public discussion sort of indicated its "existence" in the zeitgeist and could therefore be legitimately reported upon. Is the real issue here actually Notability as was suggested elsewhere? Also would still appreciate some clarification on the "untruthful", "hoax", etc, charges that are still publicly heading the piece. Those are extremely serious allegations and I still have not seen them owned or validated. Eklingdas (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of scholarly publications on the theory is a notability issue (I don't think workshop or conferences papers are enough to establish notability), but I still think there's an issue with whether the theory actually exists. Did these reputable figures discuss something called "big body theory"? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, sorry I missed this comment on my last pass, but yes, discussion of that subject was the premise of the colloquium - and it was discussed there as you may notice in the referenced comments and submissions. Regarding notability, I note WP has its own definitional parameters that extend a bit beyond Webster's "unusual and worth noticing", but it does add the heartening notes: "occasional exceptions may apply" and "Focus on improvements, not rules". It just seems like this perspective is indeed "worthy of notice", but maybe I am taking the "Be bold!" injunction too seriously.Eklingdas (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On notability, I suggest that you consult WP:NOTE. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the hoax point, I would suggest that you regard that as of secondary importance for the time being. Unless the synthesis argument is addressed, the article is going to be deleted, so the fact that it is tagged as a possible hoax is a moot point. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but being labeled a hoax in front of your millions of readers without any explanation or rationale is a lot like being noisily branded a liar, a thief or a child molester, and not very "moot" at all.Eklingdas (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that as things stand, the article will shortly be deleted, so that branding will no longer exist. If the article survives, then we can discuss the removal of the templates, but if you want to save the article then you need to address the concerns expressed here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this appears to consist of nothing but WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and could effectively be a theory coined and put together by its authors. The lack of sources backing this up, such as the 0 Google scholar results, also suggests it has no place in an encyclopedia. --Rubbish computer 23:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to point out that, without prejudice either way to whether this other article survives or not, from my research into how people have deliberately created businesses and other organizations (such as software companies and guerrilla warfare groups) modeled after biological life I've went ahead and set up the separate article cellular organizational structure. In my opinion, a lot of the original research problems with Big Body Theory is that two wholly different concepts are conflated and merged. "Does organization X act like a cell-based, living thing?" is quite different than "Is organization X a malicious living thing, something like the giant bug monster from Starship Troopers or such, and should be fought?" Both may be true (or both false), but they're not the same. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeWithMarkets, appreciate the comment, but there is liberal mention of the analogical use of the organismic concept in management circles (cf, The Living Company's international best seller status in the business community). And when you are discussing the nature of a novel life form or any new phenomenon, it seems pretty legitimate to simultaneously cite perceptions of both its positive and negative aspects, cf, Atomic power, Genetically modified food, Human cloning, etc. Finally, I have trouble understanding where lines are crossed in the Synthesis arena since most WP articles I've read seem to cite a wide multiplicity of (sometimes conflicting) sources to explain a topic, whether that topic is Abraham Lincoln, the Vietnam War or Corporatism. How does that source selection/collation process differ from Synthesis?Eklingdas (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG et al. We don't publish new ideas -- see WP:OR, WP:NEO, and WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eklingdas, I have changed the tags to more accurately reflect this discussion, and to avoid discord. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 by Jimfbleak Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarketResearch.com[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deleted by prod and restored through Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#MarketResearch.com_page_deletion, with the clear WP:COI IP's comment "MarketResearch.com is a very credible, mid-sized provider of research services. We have been in business since the late 1990's and are leader in our market. We devote time and effort to maintaining our Wikipedia page to inform and educate people about the company. We have had a Wiki page since 2009 and have always taken time to make sure the article is informational and not advertising. If you allow other companies to inform the world about their business it is discriminatory to single ours out for deletion." I believe the rationale of the prod, which was copied to the author's talk page during the prod stage, was clear enough. Also, the IP's comment uses the invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (if IP is worried that we keep their competitor's pages, please do list them here and we will review and hopefully purge much of that spam as well). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources don't demonstrate that the company meets WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. The sources given are directory listings, press releases, or primary sources, nothing providing significant coverage. The article is actively maintained by the company itself[58] and they seem to be incapable of refraining from using it as a publicity medium. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's clear the company is using it to steer public perception of their company. clpo13_(talk) 06:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a promotional piece based on content. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VJ Lucky[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how this can be better notable and improved with my searches finding nothing good and while most of the links are now dead or the publication no longer exists (i.e. American Chronicle) I also noticed the EyePScience website is now closed and replaced with an environmentalism website. I can't find much else about him so I'm not sure if he's still active therefore with no improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. Pinging past userTrivialist. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For now, fails Wikipedia:Notability (musicians). If anyone thinks there are in-depth, reliable and independent sources, please list them here and explain what makes them so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons stated above. Trivialist (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This fellow has some notability, but we don't seem to have the in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources that we really need. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I feel inclined to just delete the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So, many of the references that are on the page are either broken links or don't include VJ Lucky. The ones that do, don't show much, hinting at lack of notability. Globalmario (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)globalmario[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:06, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David G. W. Birch[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing to suggest better notability and improvement and what's more is the current sourcing is certainly not satisfying as most of them are to digitalidforum.org and other links such as amazon.com and my searches found nothing better than his books at Books and the usual browser links. Pinging past user DGG. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any in-depth, independent and reliable coverage of the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no significant books or other notability DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors, nothing to show notability on any of the searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:03, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zuma: Tales of a Sexual Gladiator[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how this can be better notable and improved and my searches found nothing good from what I see. This is not my area of interest so I'm not sure if the Wired magazine review and AVN Award are enough but I'm simply not seeing any improvement here. Pinging past user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and other users who seem interested with this topic Gene93k, Spartaz and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable movie, No sources in the article and I can't find any on GNews, Not sure if PORNBIO applies as it's obviously not a biography but certainly fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, PORNBIO is not applicable to a animated fantasy film with original created characters. WP:F is the one we use. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wired magazine was easily searched and found significant coverage of it. [59] Easy to search for and find the award also. The article has links to where to find it on what I believe is probably a pirate site. Don't wish to bother looking into this too deeply though. Dream Focus 18:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if this could be said to be a borderline case, with this piece reviewing a blip of interest, we don't have the significant kind of reliable source coverage that we really need... I feel inclined to just delete the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

series:

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. Ignoring the content, I gave the article a facelift but was unable to find enough coverage in reliable sources to meet inclusion criteria. IF an acceptable article is written on the rather unique PornoMation series, this can be spoken of therein. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails the notability guideline for films. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NFILM. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:44, 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. Rough consensus is that the rationale of BIO1E applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Abdul Mohsen[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - not notable outside of the tripping incident. Article has also been attracting WP:NPOV edits regarding the subject's alleged links with al-Nusra Front. clpo13_(talk) 06:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. WP:NOTNEWS. This may merit a sentence on two in some article on European refugees and Hungary, or perhaps the Real Madrid C.F., but not an independent entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although News and browser found a plethora of links, there's nothing to suggest better and he would be better mentioned at another article such as for the event itself. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E & WP:NOTNEWS Seriously, Wikipedia is turning into a news website. Darwinian Ape^talk 13:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable because of wide coverage and claims of being an Al Qaeda member in Syria made by Kurdish anti-ISIS activists, Internationa Business Times and widely reported. The story (true or false, there are many claims and counter-claims) is notable, well covered, and used in discussion of policy. Tiphareth (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, as detailed above. --Rubbish computer 17:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the reasons already mentioned. Human interest stories like this aren't even good news, let alone are they worthy of wikipedia articles. -Zortwort (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he was a manager of Syrian top-level football team Al-Fotuwa SC [60][61].--Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the man apparently getting tripped by "the hungarian camerawoman" fits the Category:Subjects of iconic photographs. Lot's of caricatures are already made, some even depicting her as responsible for the Death of Alan Kurdi. I prefer an article covering the whole series of events leading to the man getting hired by one of the world's most famous soccer teams. Also, the fate of camerawoman Petra Laszlo needs to be covered. -- Matthead Discuß 03:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it is a source of international memes, the story is developing, and it ties in with many other Wikipedia articles. Zezen (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E. Claims of notability as a football manager also fail WP:NFOOTY as the club managed was neither an international team nor in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a football coach (WP:NFOOTBALL), as a refugee (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E), and in general (WP:GNG). Giant Snowman 17:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject of a run of the mill warm and fuzzy news story. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E and news story, at best a footnote in an article about the ongoing refugee crisis. This is a human interest story, and we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Revisit if he's still the subject of coverage a year from now. Sandstein 18:33, 2 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 snow keep as a populated place with a GNIS reference (see WP:GEOLAND). Non-admin closure. "Pepper" @ 16:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson City, Texas[edit]

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

While it's true that this community exists, and I have nothing against those that live there, there seems to be no particular reason to consider this little place notable. Reliable source coverage is scant. Wikipedia isn't a mapping website. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GEOLAND suggest presumptive notability. In this case, sources aren't particularly challenging, and I'll go ahead and add a couple shortly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:GEOLAND confers presumptive notability only if the place is "legally recognized". The article's description of the place as an "unincorporated community" suggests that notability must be determined under the general notability guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incorporated, but it is to some degree recognized. During the 1986 Texas Sesquicentennial, it was designated a Sesquicentennial City by the Texas Sesquicentennial Commission, a fact which I could cite to the Kerrville Daily Times, but I'm ideally hoping to cite to the publications of the Commission (which are naturally not online...). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The US Geological Survey recognizes it as a populated place,[62] it rates a few lines in the Po-Po Family Restaurant entry in the Lone Star Travel Guide to Texas Hill County and it's on an official map or two.[63] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All populated places are considered notable by long-standing precedent at AfD, and I see no reason why this one should be an exception. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Populated places are considered notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, longstanding tradition that any populated place, and even formerly populated places are notable. Jacona (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it exists. Populated places are notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:08, 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 keep. Don't usually close on 2 but after being up 3 weeks I honestly can't see this AFD gaining any new !votes so may aswell wrap it up now, Overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreverlin[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient coverage for this to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This clearly passes GNG, for its reviews for their first studio album in HM Magazine and Indie Vision Music, along with reviews for their second studio album in New Release Today, Indie Vision Music, and Alpha Omega News. They satisfy BAND per No. 1 because the aforementioned reviews, and No. 2 for they have charted two songs on the Billboard magazine Christian Rock charts, where this shows and proves, "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 17 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) 04:32, 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 07:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaash Agar[edit]

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

Repeated despeedied/de-PRODDED by its COI creator, this atrociously written article does not (yet) meet WP:NFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

year:(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)

writer:(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)

production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL): WP:INDAFD: "Kaash Agar" "Noor Aalam" "Govind Kumar" "Paras Kumar" "Sanjay Kumar" "Koshi Alok Production"

Michael has cleaned the layout issues up greatly. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It was easy enough to correct its "atrocious" format[64], so THAT by itself would not be a valid deletion rationale... however, I do agree with a Delete per it (at best) being TOO SOON. It was apparently released in July,[65] but does not (yet) have the level of sourcability to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 17 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) 04:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches didn't reveal anything to show it meets WP:NFILM. Most likely WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:55, 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K11 Art Foundation[edit]

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

I cannot see how this passes WP:GNG. It reads like an advertisement for K11 (Hong Kong). This article has been deleted multiple times in the past per WP:G11. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. On first read I agreed with nom, but after a search I think it is easily a strong keep. Yes, the article is badly written in a promotional tone, but it easily passes WP:GNG in my view, as there are plenty of solid and significant references that go into detail about the foundation's activities. See the article references, as well as new items like this short piece in Artforum. How about this recent ArtNet article describing a collaboration, with the title "K11 Art Foundation's Chinese-French Connection at FIAC"? What about this article in the New York Times describing the work of the K11 Art Foundation? The refs in Artforum, Artnet, ArtNews and Blouin Artinfo are pretty much the best quality available in terms of art refs. A Google news search comes up with dozens of recent mentions of "K-11 Art Foundation". When you're a billionaire, notability might be easy! New Media Theorist (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went through and added more than a half-dozen solid refs (Art News, Forbes, Financial Times, the Art Newspaper, NY Times etc). This is a notable foundation without a doubt. You cannot get better press in the art world than what they have as refs.New Media Theorist (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - K11 is one of the best known private art foundations in Greater China, as attested in plentiful sources included in the article. It has organized highly popular art exhibitions in Hong Kong and China, and has its own private museum in Shanghai. -Zanhe (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 17 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) 04:31, 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 speedy delete per CSD G12. — Earwig ^talk 02:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sienna[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, unable to find significant coverage in RS.

Best source this article has is a re-printed/re-hosted press release off PR Newswire, which itself seems to have been copied from the wiki article (that or they're both copies of a third source). Unable to find coverage in any third party, reliable source that would confirm this person/artist's notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NMUSIC in my judgment. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G12 - Obvious copyright violation. See this analysis. Text copied straight from this site. I've tagged this article for CSD. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Omicron Gamma[edit]

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

What are the notability guidelines for fraternities and sororities? My searches found nothing good aside from some minor mentions at Books and browser much less something to suggest better improvement (and this article would need improvement especially being unsourced since May 2007). I also notice this is not mentioned at Old Dominion University so I'm not even sure if this should be mentioned there and what's more is that their website is now closed and since removed so even less to suggest keeping. Notifying past users FisherQueen, RJFJR, GermanJoe and Paine Ellsworth. SwisterTwister talk 01:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for the ping. I just did a minor cleanup and didn't really contribute to the article though. Reading briefly through the article, this seems to be one of the smaller fraternities, recently founded in 2001, with no exceptional details in the description (just common information and a brief outlook on some Christian community activities). They have a ton of self-made YouTube videos online, but that doesn't add to notability. Anyway, it's probably best if some editors of American university articles comment on this nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick technical note, their website (see history) has apparently been inactive since 2007, but incomplete Internet Archives are available from 2004 and 2005, if anyone wants to do deeper research. GermanJoe (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually made Honor Society stubs in the past with more information available online that this article. I've worked my way back through the website that was listed on archive.org and to where it was listed and still haven't found much. Some of the most available information is on their facebook page. As for what notability is, I've *tended* to go with 50 years for a local and 10 chapters for a national, but this meets neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)
Delete per above comments. Painius 01:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches didn't turn up anything to show this meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 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 Delete/redirect per WP:SNOW. The standard on Wikipedia is that minor children of notable people do not merit an article unless they meet notability guidelines and are independently notable outside of their parents. This usually means that the child has received coverage for being something other than the child of a famous person, like a notable child actor. The only exception to this would be if the child was born into nobility and is of a particularly high status, such as Prince George or Princess Charlotte of Cambridge. Barron Trump does not satisfy this criteria as he has only received coverage for being Trump's son and his appearances on various media was in a "son of" capacity. The BLP issue here is also strong, for reasons listed below and at WP:MINORS. (This is an essay, but is largely considered law on Wikipedia when it comes to minors.) I have no opinion on whether or not a "Family of Donald Trump" article would be appropriate or not, so this is something that should be discussed at Talk:Donald Trump - either way, the consensus on whether Barron deserves an individual article is very clear so there's no need to drag this out for a full week. I will leave the history intact so that if a page for the Trump family is created, there will be history to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Trump[edit]

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

We normally don't keep articles on underaged children of politicians or famous people. Earlier today, this article was expanded from a redirect (to daddy). Should either be deleted outright, redirected back to Daddy, or merged and redirected to an article that encompasses the entire clan. p b p 00:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified interested parties at Talk:Donald Trump, and have suggested the possibility of a Trump family article. p b p 00:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability independent of his parents' celebrity. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an appropriate article until Barron Trump can pass WP:GNG as the subject of articles (rather than as a footnote in articles).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cover Barron as a subject in and of himself, as indicated by the source headlines. We cover celebrity/political children all the time. The prime example is probably Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, who lived for a whole two days. --OpusDayNotDei (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's dead, no BLP concerns.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not appropriate as a stand alone article, there's nothing notable on its own here. Rjhatl (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely a candidate for deletion. Besides being non-notable in this case, generally speaking underage children of prominent figures and celebrities should be considered off limits. This, for a number of reasons, including privacy concerns -- which is why there are not separate articles on Malia and Sasha Obama, for example (even though they are photographed at numerous public events, which seems to be Barron Trump's primary claim to fame) but they are included in the Family of Barack Obama article. (For my part, I'm not even sure Wikipedia should include the 'Family of' articles, but just should list underage children on the principal person's article page). --- Professor JR (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I would note I did like a thought raised earlier of creating an article titled "Trump Family" and merging some of the more notable material in here. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 11:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Our de facto rule for a number of years has been for minor children for whom notability is wholly dependent on a notable parent to not have a separate article. I fought the Malia and Sasha determinations at the time, but have come to see it is a wise decision, and it certainly should apply here, where Trump is merely a candidate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Propose IAR Speedy Close. Trump's article is very highly trafficked, it has been in the WP:TOP25 every week for two months now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent:: We could just speedy redirect it back to daddy. Wouldn't even need an admin to do it. p b p 13:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support you in doing that. We may get some flack, but its plainly the right move.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Most of the sources cover him only in relation to his famous daddy. He probably will be notable in ~15/20 years or so, but not at the moment. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This was a redirect before; it should be restored. Agree with all delete voters that notability is not inherited, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As the editor who originally put the redirect in nine years ago, it should be restored. This child has done nothing public apart from appearing on his father's TV show as a toddler. While I commend his parents' restraint in keeping him out of the spotlight in this famewhore age (I'm looking at you, Kardashians), the fact remains that he does not deserve his own article at this time. -- Raider Duck (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to redirect per Mubogohu's points: I also agree that notability is not uninherited. --Rubbish computer 23:50, 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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yiruma[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable source coverage of this person. Soompi doesn't appear to be a reliable source given that it has 6 staff writers and a "number of contributors", and I couldn't find much else in terms of English language sources. It may be that Korean language sources exist, but I haven't been able to judge that one way or the other. Sam Walton (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article should be deleted. It is informative and I note that within WikiProject Korea it is classed C. Maybe it would be better to tag it for additional sources, rather than delete. Regards Denisarona (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone. My profile is Gevlare. I don't understand how to join that discuss in appropriate way so I decided to put my opinion here. Do not delete Yiruma page. He is one of the greatest modern compositor. He is well known all around the world and article about him just must be at wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gevlare (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted, I enjoy listening to the music of Yiruma. I dont understand why the entry would fall short of wikipedia standards. what does 'can't find any reliable source coverage' mean ? is the suggestion that this person does not exist ? 290,000 people like his facebook page, his youtube channel has some of his bio and 33 million people have watched the content posted there. I listen to his music on spotify and he has 255,000 followers there. (PTasker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.251.3 (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sawol (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Sawol (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is inherently systematically biased. There are a handful of sources: interviews about his childhood and adolescence, career, his ten-year anniversary, articles covering his albums, his performances, and so on. Clearly a notable individual, just a terrible article. — ξ ^xplicit 07:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article about Yiruma is quite good but there is not enough sourced references about biography and more. I found more information about Yiruma with other portal website, it was easy to find the biography. We have following sources. [66] Also, I found an website that part of biography on wikipedia about yiruma seems similar. [67] I thought the article about yiruma is translated from this website, but it looks not. It would be better that add more sourced references of all detailed information about Yiruma.--Misokkkim (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is clearly notable and in need of improvement. Sawol (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the sources are a mess and the bio section isn't great but the bottom line here is that this person is famous. He is well known musician in Korea and the international modern-classical music scene so it's understandable that the original poster might not know him if they aren't into that kind of music. So even the though sources aren't great if you type "river flows in you cover" into YouTube you will get at least 100,000 video results. People know him and his music. Peachywink (talk) 00:57, 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. There was agreement that the subject fails to meet NSPORTS. Additionally, the greater weight of the discussion suggested that the extant independent coverage was insufficient to meet the GNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grandy Glaze[edit]

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

Not a notable basketball player. Averaged a mere 3.8 points per game as a junior at St. Louis. In addition to not meeting GNG, the article is written to trump up his meager achievements. He's got a cool name though, thats for sure. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree in that this article does not meet WP:GNG; there are multiple reliable sources provided in the article that mention this player (ESPN and Yahoo! Sports). However, this person does not meet WP:NSPORTS (specifically, WP:NHOOPS), in that his participation is at the college level, not the NBA or National Sports level. However, WP:NSPORTS states, "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". Since this article meets WP:GNG ( ESPN, Yahoo! Sports, St. Louis Post, and Las Vegas Sun), this article meets the criterion for notability and should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs)
- Yes he has coverage is some cases, but the majority of it (e.g. the Rivals article), it is routine and trivial. Bear in mind that Glaze has not accomplished much of anything on the college level YET (that might change in the upcoming year, but we are not a crystal ball). An injury does not count. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: As much as I don't like to say this for a player that clearly hasn't done anything on the court, he has received a fair amount of independent coverage, quite a portion that is in depth (see Las Vegas Sun, Fox Sports, Arc authority - possibly blog though, Sporting News, Trib.com and Brampton Guardian). There's also the Saint Louis Dispatch source quoted by the unamed editor above (can that comment please be signed). Whilst there are definitely content and referencing problems with the article he does seem to pass the notability requirement, of course that's because the college game is overreported but we have to follow the guideline. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any article among the sources that rises above the level of routine coverage. The articles are little more than transfer and injury announcements. As a DI team, St. Louis receive a certain amount of routine coverage, which would include articles on any rotation players who get hurt or transfer. Basing notability on this would make any player notable who gets hurt while playing for or transfers in or out of a program in a multi-bid league, or maybe even most of DI. If the consensus is that this is ok, I'm fine with that, but I personally believe that injuries and transfers are routine coverage of a notable program, and Glaze would be more appropriately mentioned within season articles for the team as a recruit, a departure, and notes about how his injury affected the season in question.SCMatt33 (talk) 19:56, 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 00:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and SCMatt33. The coverage doesn't rise to the level of substantial, in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG, and he definitely doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't WP:ATHLETE a lower standard than WP:GNG?. A college athlete would need a major award, hall of fame induction, or media attention as an individual (not just along with the team). A pro athlete would need to play one game in a "major professional league". GNG would require significant coverage. According to WP:NHOOPS, this subject's chances would be if his pro team was considered a "major professional league". Jacona (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, I thought Grand Canyon was a minor-league professional team. This athlete doesn't rise to the standard of "a major award, hall of fame induction, or media attention as an individual" needed by an amateur player, so delete, for now. Good luck next year! Jacona (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS and has only routine coverage which fails WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 2 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.