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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alek Skarlatos[edit]

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

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

This young man is one of the three US citizens involved in disarming the gunman during 2015 Thalys train attack, therefore newspaper coverage of him is immense. However is this a WP:BLP1E? The only content in this article which is not in the main event page, is that apparently he is now going to be appearing on Dancing with the Stars. Does this justify the article? Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article creator. Skarlatos was initially notable for one event, but not anymore. He became publicly known for stopping the terrorist attack, but is know notable for being a foreign recipient of the Legion of Honour. He will also be on Dancing with the Stars. He does not satisfy BLP1E because quote on quote " We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Skarlatos is very unlikely to be a low-profile individual now that he is a foreign recipient of France's highest award, and will be having coverage of his role on Dancing with the Stars. Quote on quote "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Skarlatos role in the stopping of the French train attack was very well documented by international media. Skarlatos does not satisfy that category. Skarlatos also satisfies the WP:GNG. He has had more attention about him than just his role in the attack by international media. He will know be getting more coverage since he will be on Dancing with the Stars. This article was nominated for deletion too early. He does satisfy the guidelines, and his article should stay. Good day! CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1][2][3][4][5][6] - sources about his role in Dancing with the Stars. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 00:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal.Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read what I said, Skarlatos does not meet criteria for BLP1E for several reasons. That is to protect people who don't want fame, obviously he wants fame due to the fact that he will be on Dancing with the Stars. I do agree that I am being biased due to the Crystal rule, but you know there is alternatives to deletion. Also; he meets the Wikipedia notability guide WP:ANYBIO #1, quote on quote "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." He also meets Wikipedia notability guide WP:NotableMIL #1, quote on quote "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read what you wrote, what information is in this article that is not already in the main 'attack' article, apart from the 'dancing' plug and the assumption that this is going to lead to notability beyond the single event? See my remarks about WP:CRIME below, because everything in this discussion hinges on whether going to be in 'Dancing', justifies the seperate article. Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - per WP:ANYBIO #1, Legion of Honor the highest award in France. WP:BLP1E requires three criteria to be met but does not meet #1 because Skarlatos will be on Dances with Stars. His decision to appear on Dancing with the Stars tells us he is seeking the spotlight and choosing to be a public figure. BLP1E is meant to protect people from becoming a public figure who otherwise don't seek it but were thrust into the spotlight by some news event. Skarlatos is seeking the spotlight and now involved in multiple events. Also #3 requires an "insignificant event"; this arguably a significant event and he played a prominent role. -- GreenC 00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His Dancing with the Stars is very persuasive for a keep since he would be a war hero and a TV star. Other Dancing with the Stars contestants have Wikipedia pages. A sign of our sad Wikipedia world is that the DWTS stint makes him notable, more than his role in stopping a terrorist attack. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra, as I say above to CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal, neither motives nor intentions are known. Pincrete (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's been featured on many media outlets for a significant amount of time and will continue to be covered on, which already establishes some notability. I think an article for him is in order. In fact, I think articles for all the other passengers involved in subduing the gunman is in order. Versus001 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These are all WP:Crystal arguments, of course his present fame MAY lead to him being known beyond this event, but at present this one event is the sole reason for the coverage. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is known for 2 reasons. Just because a particular reader or man on the street is ignorant and doesn't know him is not a disqualifying reason. For example, ask the man on the street who famous author Pablo Neruda or famous painter Jackson Pollack were and maybe 95% of people will say "never heard of him". Given that criteria, most Wikipedia articles would be deleted except the Kardashians and President Obama. Even the Prime Minister of New Zealand would be deleted because 99% of people on the street can't name him. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At present, he is known for one reason, and the best place to incorporate the info about him is the event for which he is known, where it is given context, and will remain permanent. Everything else is crystal-ball gazing based on just over two weeks of news coverage. The media and the public are fickle. Pincrete (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What's the big hurry? Look at all the future tense and conditionals above: "will...", "would be...", "will..."; what's the big hurry, here, can we wait for it to happen, first? Agree with Pincrete's comments about WP:Crystal; he's not there yet, give him time. As of now, he's still part of the aftermath of the Thalys news cycle. As far as Legion of Honor winners, they estimate there's a million of them, although the exact number is not known. Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mathglot, Read WP:ANYBIO - He does meet the standards due to the fact that he won the highest decoration of France. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 22:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CookieMonster, I was not aware of WP:ANYBIO, thanks for bringing that to my attention. If that's legit, I would change my vote (unhappily, but I would). The reason I'm not happy about it, is that it would mean we have about one million articles to add to WP. Would you like to take the first 500,000 and I'll take the rest? ;-) Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CookieMonster read on below ANYBIO to WP:CRIME: " A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." ... What encyclopedic info cannot be incorporated, indeed has not already been incorporated in the main event page ? Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a criminal. I pointed out that he qualifies for his own article under ANYBIO. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial', of course he isn't a criminal. Who suggested he was? Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Pincrete for not reading the full text in context. I guess Skarlatos would fit in that category... CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Intensive, extensive coverage of this man and his heroic act.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As has been pointed out many times, the Legion of Honour is the highest order of France, but it comes in five grades. The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability - it's the equivalent of the Member of the Order of the British Empire or Queen's Gallantry Medal in Britain, for example, at the most (see Note 1 at WP:SOLDIER). He did receive considerable media coverage, but it's only a WP:BLP1E situation. Many people commit brave acts. They're not all eligible for articles. If they were we'd have millions of such articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp - He still does not fit the BLP1E. I explained above. No, his media coverage is not a BLP1E. What about Dancing with the Stars coverage he has already received. Does that have any connection with the Paris train attack? I don't think so... but it's fine if you beg differently. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has only been asked to be on Dancing with the Stars because of the Paris train attack, so yes, it quite clearly has a connection. How bizarre that you seem to think it doesn't! Reality TV contestants always get a lot of coverage but are not generally considered to be notable just because they're reality TV contestants. This is long-established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... you do make a point Necrothesp, but I feel like your being sarcastic, but I guess that's just me. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 14:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not sarcastic. Just rather surprised at your statement that his reality TV coverage had nothing to do with his exploits in France. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to suggest that someone with significant coverage somehow isn't notable? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob, the coverage isn't simply significant, it's huge, however all of it relates the the 'trigger event', and guidelines are clear that he should be covered within the event page. There is anyway no additional content on 'his' page apart from maybe he is going to be on a dance programme. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominator, the best place for coverage of his role in the train attack is on that event's page and notability outside that event is not established. Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice, the nomination is considered a vote. You may comment, or engage in discussion, as much as you like, though. Kraxler (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler, I didn't consider the nomination a vote, more a question, however I am happy to abide by standard practice. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification, I did not nominate this article for deletion because I thought that there was insufficient coverage, nor because I believed that Skarlatos did not 'deserve' coverage. Rather because WP's best interest (and his?) are best served by covering his role within the incident for which he is known. Time will tell whether he carves out a public role outside that event. Pincrete (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be notable for both a television role and winning a notable award for heroism; this BLP1E is not relevant. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third-level (or lower) gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Many thousands of people have won such decorations. Why is he special? Reality TV contestant because of his gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Perfectly well covered in the article on the incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Necrothesp. Notability needs to stand the test of time, and this person clearly doesn't. In the world we live in these days, anyone can garner significant coverage in a matter of hours. Does an encyclopaedia benefit from articles about things gone viral? I seriously doubt it. If he becomes notable in the near future, then we can easily recreate this biography. Let's see what happens; from experience I'm about 96% sure there'll be no more coverage about him in a couple of months' time, but then again let's not assume, let's see (which is how Wikipedia works, not assuming people deserve articles but rather observing after there is well-established atemporal and extensive coverage). FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• note that journalists [7] and [8] their [9] readers [10] can't seem to get enough Skarlatos. That was just some of what's on a news google search by "most recent first". I propose we all put way our crystal balls, keep this one for now, and revisit in a year, when there may be some clarity as to enduring notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, you have voted above to 'keep'.Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. Nor did I just "vote". I "noted" that quite a lot of coverage continues to appear daily in mainstream media. I suggested that the article be kept - because it has a ton of sources; pointed out that calling this a flash in the pan requires the use of a crystal ball; and suggested that a kept article can be revisited if an editor thinks - months from now - that he can persuade the rest of us that Skarlatos was a mere nine days wonder. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify I am a firm keep. There is notability here. If it comes up for AFD again, I will argue that enduring notability is established by sources now available.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Extensive coverage exists at the present allowing a suitable article to be constructed at the present. I fail to see what Wikipedia would gain by deleting this. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winner 42, as I've said often above, there is enormous coverage, but almost all of it relates directly to the train incident, what point therefore is repeating that info on a 'private' page? Maybe in the future he will establish some notability outside that incident, at present he hasn't. What does WP gain? Gathering all relevant info in one place, where it has context.Pincrete (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or maybe redirect--let the tabloids decide whether to redirect to the Thalys attack or to Dancing with the Stars). I don't see why anyone who makes the papers needs an article, hero or not. We have this crazy situation where everything gets written up in some publication which by sheer force of weight gets accepted as a reliable source, and next thing you know we have a million YouTube "personalities" and other biographies of people who otherwise would live a peaceful two-sentence existence in a bigger article. I'm completely with Necrothesp: coverage is limited (of course) to the one event, and the rest is crystalballery. BTW, someone needs to explain to me, at some point, why a contestant on a TV dance show needs an article. Like, a real explanation please, not one that says "Entertainment Tonight mentioned his name three times, as did Perez Hilton". Drmies (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments (probably nothing useful:)), funny when afds become longer then the article concerned, "The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability" - very common??, I don't have one, does anyone else involved in this discussion?, according to the wikiarticle Legion of Honour, as of 2010 there has only been about 100,000 issued, if we can have thousands of articles about academy award winners and sports people ("competed at the modern Olympic Games" is notable WP:NOLYMPICS - 1000s compete at each Olympics eg. over 10,000 at London) why can't recipients of this honor (and obes, mbes as well:)) have an article (and no, I am not volunteering to do them:))? Also, is the WP:SOLDIER comment relevant as this person is receiving the award as a civilian? If this article is redirected, won't there arise balance/undue weight issues in the main article? "it's only a WP:BLP1E situation" which states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met" (my emphasis) can someone please show where this is the case here as I have not been convinced by the 'deleters'. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, WP:CRIME advises: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There are at least 5 people whose actions on the train are highly notable (2 French (one whose full name is not known), 3 US, 1 UK). Is the reader better served by all of the relevant info being in one place (inc. their honours) or being spread across 5-6 articles? Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, fair point about WP:CRIME, although I have been involved in/and read afds where the idea that WP:GNG trumps other policies/guidelines has held sway. On the point about the other people involved, if they are seen as notable/more notable then Skarlatos I am sure an editor will remedy their non-article situation. If a reader is interested enough in the subject, a couple of clicks won't put them off. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment Only by the will of God will we know if this article will be deleted or not. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 19:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe! But it's more likely to be the will of consensus based on policy and determined by the closing administrator. If you'd like to consider administrators to be servants of the Lord that is, of course, entirely up to you. Keegan (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note that this is humor, and not to be taken seriously :) Keegan (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was being serious with a hint of humor ;P CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 02:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Let’s face it, WP:BLP1E rule is somewhat subjective. For example, most Congressional Medal of Honor winners are low-viz people who earn their notability with one act of courage. If an individual captures the world’s attention like Skarlatos has, they should be notable enough for an individual Wikipedia page. There’s certainly enough independent, secondary source material to do a good article on him including information about his personal life (which goes beyond his involvement in the train attack). The fact that he have now been selected to be on Dancing with the Stars is good evidence that his notoriety may go beyond just one event. One final point … all of the participants in the 2015 season of Dancing with the Stars now have individual bio articles in Wikipedia (along with all their professional dancing partners)…see Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 20). So are we going to delete Skarlatos bio article now and then add it back when he starts dancing?--Orygun (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If all there was was terror attack, then WP:BLP1E might apply. I do think it is too early to decide whether or not WP:BIO1E is indicated, per WP:CRYSTAL. But using BLP1E, this individual does not appear to meet all 3 criteria. All that said, with the announcement of his participation on DWTS, BLP1E clearly no longer applies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 13 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. LFaraone 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toshishiro Obata[edit]

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

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

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinkendo, three different editors questioned the notability of this person, the inventor of [Shinkendo. When attempting to rewrite this article recently, I was able to find only one source with any coverage at all of his life and achievements (I don't speak or read Japanese). I too question his notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just not enough to support notability in any of the areas.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article doesn't show significant independent coverage and doesn't meet notability for martial artists. Also no indication of notability as an author.Jakejr (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails both the general notability guidelines, and WP:BLPNOTE. I am not sure whether martial arts falls under sports, as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) appears to address only mixed martial artists. I am not sure what guideline editor Jakejr is referring to above for martial artists, but I concurr in his/her conclusion that there is no significant coverage, and that Shinkendo cannot be a basis for his notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinkendo, which concluded that there was no significant independent coverage of that martial art.  --Bejnar (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see WP:MANOTE is an essay rather than a guideline, but still works. --Bejnar (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and above editors, who do a good job of summarizing the issues with this article. Searches provided nothing which went to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Türk[edit]

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

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

Most Air Forces have one or more solo display aircraft that fly in events and airshows and unlike multiple aircraft aerobatic teams these are not really notable, I cant see that this solo aircraft is particularly notable outside a mention on the Turkish Air Force page. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator's rationale. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Air Forces solo display aircraft teams are notable. Air Forces solo display aircraft teams should have one pages, or at least build into the Air Force page with MORE than just 1-2 sentens.

FFA P-16 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The aircraft is not the major subject of the significant sources cited and is not notable enough for a standalone article, as explained by Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow I can not see any word on Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) that single aircraft display Teams are not notable.. There exist a few single aircraft teams who play an important part on international air shows with history and some of them earned aviatic awards. I don't see any reason why Display Teams with 2 or more aircraft can bee on Wikipedia and such with 1 aircraft not.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One lone machine is not a "team". The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft. If a given "team" gains enough mention then notability can be established in the usual way by citing reliable sources which actually address the notability of the aircraft and/or its team. That is not the case here, the main sources are concerned with a centenary event and this aircraft's display gets only a passing mention. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the therm Team is not only relatet to the numbers of aircraft. I can not agree with "The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft". Whitout more than 1 person no aircraft display would be possibel . Also the definition "One lone machine is not a "team"" is not right [11] its 1 Superpuma or Cougar.. but its the Super Puma Display Team..Super Puma Display TEAM. Or [12] again its SWISS HORNET DISPLAY TEAM. Also they don't do just some fly by, they have a real display program with manouvers specialised for a display. FFA P-16 (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Still on Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is no definition about Display Teams nor a definition about the term "Team". To have here on English Wikipedia only the Teams from 2 aircraft and more but suppress informations about single aircraft display teams makes Wikipedia in this aeronautics topic an unusable tool.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a tool for informations. It is not at wikipeda to define what is an aerobatic team and what is not. If an Air Force like the Greece, Belgian, Swiss , Turkish Air Force(in this case the Turkish Air Force) has given an single aircraft display team the official statuts, it si it. Wikipedia can (should)put in this in its "database". To think Wikipedia could determine over decisions of Air Force is illogical and absurd. Banish teams with only one airplane from Wikipedia, violated the basic idea of Wikipedia about the neutral and equitable access of information.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I appreciate the effort put in creating the article, but I see no notability on it. If single aircraft in airline fleets are not notable, I don't see why a particular military aircraft is.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: These single aircraft demonstrations should just be a simple mention on the page of the applicable air force, not their own article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment two issues. 1) is there significant mentions in reliable sources to show notability of the subject, 2) is there sufficient material to write a complete article without padding the article with non-notable material? I think both need to be achieved for the article to stand alone. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment also note that air forces like the Royal Air Force have had four or five solo demonstration aircraft every year for a long time, at the beginning of the season you get a press release as they paint a new scheme on an aircraft to use, although it is the pilot who is the authorised demonstrator so sometimes they dont use the "painted" aircraft. Take the other Swiss example the Swiss Super Puma solo demonstrator uses a different aircraft from the fleet every time as the display authority for solos is the pilot. We might consider a stand-alone article on military aircraft solo demonstrators but if you look at something like the Royal International Air Tattoo these are pretty common and none I would say are notable for a stand-alone article like this one. MilborneOne (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Super Puma Display Team can use any of the Swiss Air Forces Super Puma or Cougar right, but we should not focus on it if the aircraft has a special painting or if there are 1 or more pilots. I think the approach for such single aircraft teams verification of notability should be his continuity in standardized existence for several years (for eg. since min.3 years) with regular displays flown on public events and or airshows. No mater if an aircraft has a special painting or not. I would not count aircraft with a special paint for just a single event (for eg . NATO Tigermeet) to this.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:08, 12 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. Consensus is that this mosque does not meet Wikipedia's standards of topic notability to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Fani Masjid, Bidar[edit]

Peer Fani Masjid, Bidar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced article about a mosque which does not meet WP:GNG. My searches bring up zero hits on this mosque. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability. The article basically says that it's a mosque near Bidar, a town about 100km from Hyderabad. The article about Bidar mentions a long list of monuments in the city, but makes no mention of this mosque, so I seriously doubt that it's very significant. I did web and Google Books searches, but they also failed to turn up anything significant. --Slashme (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found no sources. --Human3015^TALK  12:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with the above. No indication of notability was found. Nothing in the article even hints towards notability. No independent resources either. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Generally, individual buildings or complexes are not notable. The guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Buildings and objects states that structures can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. There is no such assertion here. The guideline goes on to say: They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. There is no such coverage here, nor did I find any. For what it is worth, I did give notice of this Afd at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Mosques task force.  --Bejnar (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus: not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Carlos[edit]

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

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

Delete: utterly non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 05:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and there's also not a good move target and with my searches not finding anything significant and outstanding aside from these links, there's not much for improvement and thus keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What with this fellow's age, it seems that having an article might be a 'too soon' situation given his limited career so far. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Lawton[edit]

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

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

Hasn't played a first team game Telfordbuck (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He has for Nuneaton --CovCity97 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nuneaton are not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 8 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 Hit Squad. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knucklehedz[edit]

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

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

Subject fails on WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Notability tag is placed since January 2011. No coverage in reliable sources at all. Hitro talk 21:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hit Squad. It seems to have no independent notability. Searches do not produce significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also there is no claim to notability stated in the article, except for a possible inherited claim from Hit Squad and/or EPMD, which doesn't fly. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as my searches found no immediately good sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 11 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. Consensus that the qualification is playing in a regular season game, not just being on the roster DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Igbinosun[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON. I can't find anything on him playing in a regular season game Rowsdower960 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find any reasonable news sources and otherwise does not meet any notability standard that I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This one is a close call. He has a profile at Pro-Football-Reference.com here, which I think means that he is a regular roster player (as opposed to just practice squad) but lists no regular season game appearances. Then there's this from NFL.com, which seems to state he remains on the Jacksonville Jaguars roster as of the last preseason game on 9/3/15 (and so far I find no release saying he's been cut). Also, there is some significant coverage. See, e.g., this profile from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, this from the New Haven Register, this short piece from First Coast News, this blurb from the Sun Times Network, this longer story from Bleacher Report (debatable as reliable source), and this short blurb from Rolling Stone. Cbl62 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While I appreciate the research efforts that Cbl62 made above, I see exactly one independent, reliable source that rises to the level of significant coverage of the subject (i.e., Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2012, linked above). The remainder of the coverage is routine transactional coverage that every NFL signee receives, one that discussed the purported unpronounceability of his name (i.e., Rolling Stone), with the added coverage of a fansite (i.e., BleacherReport.com). The subject player was not a notable college athlete, and has never played in a regular season NFL game in three previous NFL seasons; he is not a part of any roster, practice otherwise, and the likelihood of him now appearing in an NFL game is slim. I see no loss of encyclopedic content by the deletion of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:54, 8 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 Withdrawn, edits conflicted, user realised how to create a PROD template. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubble A[edit]

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

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

For Sgim43 (talk · contribs), who says that By this own definition [of Dubble A having a single or album on a national music chart] fails the requirement, as the source given in not a recognized or National Music Chart. All Access Music Group, the creator of this "chart" doesn't even have a wikipage. Based on this then I could create and LLC as a upstart publishing company or radio station, create a list with any 10 people I want and then create pages for them!" ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:25, 5 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. Consensus that no nobility has been shown DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohkam Din Serani[edit]

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

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

This article is so troubled and my searches found nothing aside from a YouTube video here and a blog there and the current sources aren't very detailed so unless this can actually be improved, I'm not seeing much and this has existed since August 2008 without the slightest significant improvement. Pinging tagger MBisanz and maybe Diannaa (removed the wikifying tag). SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the present article says nothing about what he did in a probably long period between his going to Delhi and being poisoned at the age of about 60. I get the feeling that the article has lost its middle and that he is an early holder of some important office, but currently he appears to be utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we can't be left to guess what an article is about, the creator of it should tell us, or there should be sources to enlighten us, but there aren't any. Kraxler (talk) 20:01, 12 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 Userfied to User:Niespodj/The Other Side (2014 film) due to future potential.-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side (2014 film)[edit]

The Other Side (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a film which only contains one Unreliable source. The article does not meet any sort of notability requirement including WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Searches are difficult as there seem to be several different films by the same name. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found this by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette but cannot find additional coverage from reliable sources. There are some reviews that exist, but they are not published by periodicals or notable websites. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wiki so I apologize if not using proper tags, etc. There are approximately two dozen legitimate reviews of the film. I did not post them on the page because I wanted to keep it 100% neutral and not show favoritism in selecting one review over another. Also, if the official website is visited (www.teamorchard.com) there are direct links on the front page to the film online on all major internet video on demand platforms, including Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, iTunes, and Google Play. I did not include these links in the movie's page because I did not want to commercialize it or use it for publicity. The film has also screened at a half dozen film festivals in 2015. There are films with the same title listed that have far less credentials and widescale availability, so I'm unsure why this particular film page is being targeted for deletion. Niespodj (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Being available for distribution and having screened at festivals aren't things that would automatically give notability, although they do make it much easier for something to gain coverage. I'll try to find the reviews, but I'm concerned that these reviews might not be usable as reliable sources (WP:RS) and may be the unusable sources that Erik was talking about. Not all reviews are usable as reliable sources, so if something was covered in a self-published blog, those cannot be used. (However if the blog was included in a notable, reliable aggregate website like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes as a critic review, then it could be used.) Also, saying that other things exist (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) with less notability on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for inclusion, as there are many, many articles on here for films that really don't pass notability guidelines - they just haven't been detected yet. However all of that said, I will try to look for sources and see if I can find enough for the film to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. Right now it's a little early for it to have an article, as the only true coverage we have is a press release from Dread Central and two articles from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. There are some blog reviews out there, but not in any places that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. However given that the film has just gone to VOD, it's possible that there will be some more reviews coming in the future, so I think it'd be a good idea to userfy the content. I'm willing to do that, since that would help counteract the concerns about a conflict of interest. Now if these reviews come up before the AfD closes, this will of course be a keep on my end. Niespodj, since you are involved with the film I'd like to suggest that you petition the following sites for reviews: Dread Central, HorrorNews.net, Bloody Disgusting, Fangoria, and Ain't It Cool News. AICN, Fangoria, and HN.N are all very good about reviewing indie horror films. Flickering Myth and We Got This Covered are also good places to look towards for soliciting reviews as well, since they're also good about reviewing indie films and both are considered to be RS on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts

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

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

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

distributor:(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)

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

• Comment: Well... not a deletion, but an acceptable non-wiki'd "storage-for-work" is not the worst result. I believe however that a userfication would probably be very temporary indeed... considering the growing interest in zombie-themed productions, this being slated for wider release when it hits the satellite and cable networks in two weeks, and there being a reasonable resulting expectation that with such wider release we can expect it to then be covered in places other than decent sources of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (1), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (2), and Dread Central, or the less-than-perfect We Live Film, Horror Society, UK Horror Scene, Zombie Movie Database, Tom's Blog of Horror, Demons of Celluloid, and Little Blog of Horrors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's kind of what I figure - if more sources aren't available by the end of the AfD period, it's likely that they'll come about in the next few months with Halloween approaching. Outright deletion wouldn't really be my first impulse here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if no new sources pop up in 6 days, with wide release September 18, we probably will not have to wait for Halloween. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Schmidt, I had to remove the Dread Central bit from the reception section. The Dread Central article is a reprint of the press release for the most part and the bits that were added as a review were from the press release. You can tell because this was reprinted in this website and labeled as a press release. The portions about the cast's home bases looks like it was heavily or directly taken from a press release as well, but that's a basic detail so there's no reason not to include that - just be careful about anything italicized on DC since that usually means that they took it from somewhere else. However that said, I did find some probably usable reviews, so yay for that. I'll add them soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Argh, all blog reviews. (Got them from this press package.) I was hoping that Horror Society would at least be usable, but they have nothing on their page about their editorial oversight. The other sites are either outright unusable blogs or also lack anything on their site that would show that they have an editorial board that Wikipedia would approve of as a RS. (sighs) I wish more outlets would label people as editors or whatnot. Horror Society likely does have them, but chooses not to include them. I'll drop them an e-mail about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll just have to wait, and we can always bring it back if it receives better coverage upon its September 18 release to satellite and cable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - as per Tokyogirl79. In its current state, it shouldn't be on the mainspace, but it has the potential to be developed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - article can be developed/probably will and should be user(fyed?) before going to mainspace. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus; not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHuman Project[edit]

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

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

No notability asserted, no third-party sources (the one "reference" is by no means a source for the subject, having nothing to do with the AHumanProject), opinionated incoherent writing. I PRODded it, but the prod was promptly removed by the creator, with the argument that it needs to be on Wikipedia precisely because it is nowhere else, if I understood them correctly.[13] Bishonen | talk 16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VS: Well, let me clarify. I have used many sources, including Wikipedia to create content of aHuman. This project is not just pages to collect the information, but it contains know-how on how to integrate the information, and auto-generated content. Quality of data were confirmed several times in private emails to me from science representatives. Still, as I'm not a part of science community, it's quite hard to have formal references. At least, I have not spend much efforts for that up to the moment. Nevertheless, I think that it is the quite unique source of information, which have to be available to scientists. aHuman tag on google search is first line of output - so I can pretend it's sort of referenced actually. But when google buried its googlecode service and I migrated project to specific hosting, I need smth to let people know where they can find aHuman pages now. So, it is need both to community an to me (btw, to much lesser extent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There really don't seem to be sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS discussing this, let alone discussing it in any depth. Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting new ideas, see WP:NOT. Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons given by the nominator. The lack of reliable independent sources means that notability has not been established according to WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VS: Guys, ok, looks like you do not see the point. Wikipedia will miss more than me. Your pages are also criticized for politicisms and intentional distortions and some people do not trust your information at all. Now I also can see your rule set is somehow reasonable but fail in some cases. If you like you can believe that it is a sort of consensus. Happy with "let alone discussing it in any depth" - gentle enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.The topics of Wikipedia articles have to meet our notability guideline. At present, this one doesn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Although this sounds like an interesting project, it needs, as others have stated, to have been written about in independant reliable sources to be considered notable for Wikipedia. ABF99 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VS: final message from me. Wikipedia is arranged collection of significant facts. It is the only achievable goal disregarding your personal thoughts about it. aHuman is a fact confirmed by its author. And it is significant fact because of the concept and volume and quality of published project data. Hence if your rules prevent people across the world to let know about this fact, it means that existing formal rule set is incorrect. So is up to you whether to sacrifise Wikipedia mission or to improve rules.

Thank you all, welcome to ahuman.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik (talk • contribs) 09:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—No WP:RS. The claim to notability given by Vsavchik above is well and good, but we can't have an article until reliable, third-party sources substantiate the claim. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alesia McKinnon[edit]

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

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

Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Other than her IMDb page I couldn't find enough coverage about her. In fact, the TV series mentioned in the article, Clairvoyance: The Ellis Files, is currently a red link, and even if it weren't, the role, as well as McKinnon's other roles, do not appear to pass WP:ENTERTAINER as they are mostly guest or supporting roles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – article speedy deleted for non-notability/WP:A7 a day ago. Fails WP:ACTORBIO and is much WP:TOOSOON.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable actress. --Edcolins (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as she's obviously not notable and there are no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This excessively promotional article makes no claim of notability and there appears to be none to make. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; I think there's nothing left to say. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete -A7 - Tagged as such as this is obviously A7 material, As the saying goes - No sources = No article. –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 does not seem to apply in view of her IMDb page.[14] --Edcolins (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nope I was indeed wrong as A7 states " The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear,", so nope you're completely correct, In that case Delete as non notable actress. –Davey2010^Talk 14:19, 12 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Amsterdam Spirits[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING, lack of reliable sources JMHamo (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as it's locally notable at best and although I found links here and there with News, browser and highbeam, we can wait for better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons stated by nominator. There's almost nothing here except advertising material. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu political controversies[edit]

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

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

Local political lore in a place of pop. 14,000; fails WP:NEVENT, coverage is very much restricted to the local newspapers Kraxler (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The controversies were definitely notable to be mentioned in so many news outlet, and even considering the local sources heavily outweigh any national ones, there's not really a requirement for an article to have multiple national sources for the subject of it to be considered notable. It doesn't overuse a single source, it uses multiple sources from many newspapers, which is why I feel it should be kept. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check again the sources. There are dead links, official election department candidates' listings, and a lot of pieces from the Pichilemu local papers. There are about three sources from bigger newspapers for a few particular points, but that doesn't mean that the whole lot gets suddenly notable. See also WP:COATRACK. Kraxler (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler, I suggest you withdraw this nomination. I could even, myself, give you access to El Mercurio web archives (I'm a suscriber) so that you can see yourself there is plenty of coverage on this series of events. Not to mention, La Tercera, El Rancagüino (offline) and other non-local references... (I see you have a problem with local sources) Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read carefully WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. Kraxler (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These don't have anything to do with this particular article. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are guidelines applicable to all articles on events. Kraxler (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question probably for Diego Grez-Cañete and SuperCarnivore591 who are voting keep on this and other articles: I note that none of these subjects has an article in a Spanish-language Wikipedia, even though it takes place in a Spanish-language country and the sources all seem to be in Spanish. Why is that? There is an article in @es WP on Pichilemu, but it has none of these particulars. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably because the Spanish Wikipedia has less editors than the English Wikipedia does, and no one has gotten around to it (although some Spanish-speaking editors have undoubtedly worked on the article here, as most of the references are written in Spanish). SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second SuperCarnivore's comment. Also, I have always felt more comfortable editing here than on the Spanish edition, that's why I never got to create articles about these topics there. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pertinent info can also be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 75#Memoria Pichilemina. Kraxler (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think SuperCarnivore591 misunderstood the question. This article does not exist in the Spanish Wikipedia. Why? Because Chilean and Spanish-languages users have long-ago seen trough Diego Grez's biased (albeit sometimes good) editing. Diego Grez many users have blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia. Sietecolores (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:GEOSCOPE sums it up, occasional references in non-local sources but not enough impact to pass WP:NEVENT. Vrac (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. --Keysanger (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too little coverage to justify an article on its own. There is also a WP:BIO concern about the subjects here. This material belongs in the website Memoria pichilemina, not here. Sietecolores (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inadequate notability--we do not cover local politics to this level of detail. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricio Morales[edit]

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

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

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NPOL; sources are hyper-local or directories. Vrac (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. --Keysanger (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Case is simmilar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa. Not-notable lightweight small-town politician. Sietecolores (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - badly-written stub about a local pol. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 12 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. Too minor of a politician with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Aranda[edit]

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

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

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. --Keysanger (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: she is not notable as politician (limited coverage, limited "power", geographically very limited "power", got elected with very few votes). Note the case is simmilar to Marta Urzúa. Sietecolores (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local politician. She may be up and coming, so I'm open to re-creating this if she garners national media attention in Chile. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Too minor of a politician with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viviana Parraguez[edit]

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

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

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, non-local coverage is very brief, fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG. --Keysanger (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: article fails to establish why she is notable as politician, lawyer or surfer. −Lappspira (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator as subject fails NPOL and relevant general notability guidelines. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. She's just a former local pol, the equivalent of a county legislator. Also, she fails my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minor local politician with non-significant coverage. Fails our inclusion guidelines.-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cornejo[edit]

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

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

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG.--Keysanger (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sufficient DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Córdova[edit]

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

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

Mayor of a place of pop. 14,000, fails WP:NPOL, coverage is WP:ROUTINE and restricted to his hometown newspaper, fails also WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this and the other Pichilemu-related articles. Kraxler is disrupting the project to show a point: local stuff in non-first world countries does not matter. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC) // PS. Did you even try[15][reply]
• Delete: none of the above sources contain significant coverage of this individual, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vrac what about these? [16][17][18][19][20][21] These are all major sources about the topic (note, although I am the owner of the first website linked, I have no relationship with the subject of the article). Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is better that you've found some non-Pichilemu sources, the coverage in those are mentions where he is quoted or interviewed, with very little content on the individual himself. I'm discounting the Pichilemu sources who of course will cover their mayor in-depth but lack scope. Vrac (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG.--Keysanger (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just a local politician. Would be deleted wherever he came from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Vrac User:Necrothesp Thing is he is the mayor of a provincial capital, not just a tiny obscure town. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An entity that itself has a population of about 40k. It has been translated as "province" but a closer equivalent in English would be county. A province is commonly a principal administrative division, which is not the case in Chile, whose principal administrative divisions are the regions. Vrac (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. He never received significant press coverage. --Keysanger (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Even the head of the subdivision itself would be deleted if it only had a population of 40,000 failing another reason to keep him. And that would be the case in Britain or America just as it would anywhere else. Leaders of British county councils don't generally have articles, for example, and they often serve a population of several hundred thousand. He just isn't notable enough. Sorry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails GNG due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffroy Faugérolas[edit]

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

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

Non-notable filmmaker. Fails both WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BASIC. I could find a passing reference here, one interview on Lazydog Films (a blog), and another interview on Flickering Myth (which seems to be a blog as well), but this is insufficient under WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Edcolins (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article created by Geothebg (talk · contribs), a WP:SPA who also created the now-deleted article for someone else of the same last name. "Nominations" - seemingly just showings at a film festival - are for local festivals anyway and do not add up to the level of significance we seek for nominations qualifying one for notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as the best results was simply links such as these here. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches showed nothing to meet notability criteria as per WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 13 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. LFaraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Polanco[edit]

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

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

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Probably one of the longest-standing city councilors in Chile (26 years in office, including a term as Codeco -counselor of communal development- between 1989 and 1992). There are references out there, including some of El Mercurio, passes notability guidelines. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage in El Mercurio is WP:ROUTINE, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:GNG.--Keysanger (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator with the note that the case is simmilar to Marta Urzúa who was deleted. Sietecolores (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Councillor in a small town. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 9 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. With no prejudice towards recreation if construction ends up going ahead and further coverage occurs. Sam Walton (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuching Tower[edit]

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

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

Kuching tower ground breaking ceremony was held in 2005 and is never completed. Apart from news back in 2005, there is no news since then for the progress of the construction. Cerevisae (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - most relevant results from a search are WP:SPS. There is insufficient coverage for this to meet WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ontological question: how can a something physical be notable if it does not yet exist?New Media Theorist (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The media release on which the article is based states that is "located on the Kuching Isthmus" - yet satellite and streetview imagery from 2015 shows no indication of such a structure there. No evidence this project went ahead beyond the initial media release. --ELEKHH^T 11:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as this is too crystally and if it wasn't for the unclear plans, it would've been acceptable but we'll wait for a more solid article. SwisterTwister talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Aguirre[edit]

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

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion, which I don't think it quite meets. I suspect this person is non-notable (the books are vanity press) but bringing it to AfD just in case. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Found no substantial coverage. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, search brings up almost nothing, let alone anything useful. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 11 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 Withdrawn - article has been moved and improved by @Fenix down:. GiantSnowman 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NFF Women's League Squad 2015[edit]

NFF Women's League Squad 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This is a non-notable list of people, and we don't have (or need) individual squad lists, especially for such a minor tournament / so many non-notable people. GiantSnowman 10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, I am working on profile for all players, is this something i should have before creating the squad list? Mike Hadnett (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Hadnett: - no, these people are non-notable unless' they have played senior international football for New Zealand (see WP:NFOOTBALL) and any profiles you create will just wind up deleted as well. I suggest you save your time. GiantSnowman 10:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - complete lack of coverage from secondary sources means that this fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per argument provided by Fenix down Spiderone 17:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a team competing in the top level of women's football in New Zealand, indeed, it is a team that has won the competition several times in recent years per RSSSF. I have moved the article to a more appropriate title per RSSSF, namely Northern Football and provided additional references to show their repeated successes at the highest national level. @GiantSnowman:, @Spiderone:, does this change your opinion? I think this is more a case of a new editor not creating the right article title than a non-notable subject and want to avoid any biting. Fenix down (talk) 16:08, 8 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) 01:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steadfastness and Confrontation Front[edit]

Steadfastness and Confrontation Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be entirely Original Research Qualitatis (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs more sources for sure, just one external link, but doesn't appear to be WP:OR, as it was formed. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not 'original research' at all. More sources might be good, but I don't see how this could be mistaken for original research. --Mrodowicz (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how this is a valid reason to delete. Nonetheless, while researching this topic, I did come across some discrepancies between the sources and this article. I tagged them accordingly, and also added a source to the verifiable information. (There is a possibility that the content I tagged is not OR and that I was simply not thorough enough.) Elspamo4 (talk) 18:19, 7 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pancho Tequila[edit]

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

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

Mexican film from 1970 with no references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Standard searches were done and article PROD'd, which was declined by article creator. Sending to AFD. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Pure laziness. I removed the prod because it's notable, it just needed expanding. In future User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR try searching in google books before nominating or prodding. Oh and please change your user name, it's utterly ridiculous and offputting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to look at the spanish language sources you added. I checked one already and it was a single mention of the title.[22] The others may be better. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alphabet soup-named nominator... go read WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and understand WP:COMMONSENSE... something released 20 years pre-internet need not remain in the hardcopy headlines, and there is a reasonable expectation that film with lots of notable Mexican actors would have had coverage 45 years ago. Due diligence, dude... due diligence. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

type:(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)

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

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

• Keep in full agreement with Dr. Blofeld. Being unsourced is NOT a deletion rationale when sources are so easily found available with a little due diligence... even if Spanish. Per WP:HANDLE we fix the fixable, not toss them out of sheer laziness. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I won't claim any particular expertise on Mexican movies, but this has everything I'd expect to see in a notable one: notable director (who directed several Cantinflas features), several notable actors, notable studio. We don't have an article on the main star, but he does appear notable enough for one. The fact that it was released on DVD 35 years after it was made shows some measure of enduring cultural interest. The only issue I see is the image is labeled a poster when it's clearly a DVD cover or something similar, but that's far from cause for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As explained above.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 7 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. LFaraone 16:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Goel[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP, tagged as needing reference improvement since 2010 without further action, of a person notable only as a deputy leader of a minor political party. While the party is one whose leader generally gets over the bar, the same can't be said of the deputies — and being a deputy leader isn't a notability freebie under WP:NPOL. The extant source isn't even substantively about him, either, but merely namechecks his existence — and the article reads very like a campaign brochure, written almost entirely in incomplete sentence fragments and delving far more into unsourced statements of his beliefs and inspirations than into anything encyclopedic that he did. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and above editor. Nothing in searches revealed anything to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Amyotte[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as the leader of an unregistered fringe political party. This was fine under the standards that Wikipedia held when it was first created, but consensus changed and this no longer satisfies WP:NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no sources on Google or Google News. No notability established. CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; couldn't find significant coverage. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:50, 7 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. Some "keep" arguments are notably weak because they don't address the reasons advanced for deletion, such as "as notable as any other video game", or "I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive", when the nomination makes clear that this is not the argument being made here. Among the other opinions, we have consensus that sourcing is too weak at this time to meet WP:GNG.  Sandstein  07:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015[edit]

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I understand the WP:NOTCENSORED arguments. This is not about censorship. I am not a Muslim, not personally offended. The reality is, this game has simply not received significant coverage in reliable sources. At the first nomination, some suggested additional coverage would occur. This has not happened. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mandate inclusion of every potentially offensive topic AusLondonder (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. If this was a non-controversial game, like a flash game, and it had the same amount of references, it'll be a no-brainer. CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What weird interpretation of GNG are you using that this subject doesn't qualify? The first two references alone give GNG passing coverage [23] [24] In fact all the references in the article (expect ref 3) offer significant coverage in reliable sources. Please explain how all these sources don't pass GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions in a couple of articles from outlets such as Vice do not meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't mere mentions, the sources are reliable and they provide significant coverage which is the definition of GNG passing coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree. Not all those sources are reliable. AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Times, éVice News, Republika, and MeriStation all aren't reliable? Please read WP:RS again. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Throwaway game covered minimally as news posts, no serious reviews or in depth coverage. This has gather less coverage than Vice's London Piss Dungeon. The game is so stupid that there is no serious commentary, compare that with Slave Tetris, where we have coverage into why people believe the game is wrong, and what we can learn from it.[25][26] - hahnchen 09:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the coverage this game has received is somehow routine? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Its the exact opposite. Video games are things people play for entertainment value. This game is controversial and all coverage about the game is about how it is controversial, not about how the game was made, reviews it received, music, sound, graphics, or any other quality that would be fitting of a video game. For that it fails the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG which is defined as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" [27]. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG, endorse CerealKillerYum's point that all coverage is about the offensiveness of the name/game. The little coverage there is, is about the controversy not the game itself, which has attracted almost zero coverage. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was alot of talk about this game around the time the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened. I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive. Illstillbehere (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin: Illstillbehere has 4 edits at this time, 3 of them were to this page, CerealKillerYum (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I made clear, I did not nominate this for its offensiveness or otherwise. I nominated because it is non-notable. AusLondonder (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG which requires not only significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but also coverage which persists over time. The sources available are so-so, but all of the coverage comes from the same 3-day span, with next to nothing since then (though I'm content to switch my !vote if others find such sources). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This falls under WP:SENSATION. A game, that caught the attention of a small number of media outlets, briefly. a quick search here: [28] I cannot find that it got either enduring or extensive coverage, or that objections to it received significant coverage. Flag me if anyone demonstrates significant coverage, and I'll revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The game itself seems to fail GNG but the contraversy about it, may not. Is there an article about similar contravercies? It can possibly be merged into it. Settleman (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Settleman: The controversy would likewise have to pass WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage [of the controversy] in multiple reliable sources over a period of time. As there seems to be 100% overlap between coverage of the game and coverage of controversy surrounding the game, it seems unlikely sufficient sources about the latter exist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nowhere to merge it, my vote is Delete. Settleman (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is as notable as any other video game. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why using a policy based rationale. Pokerkiller (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the reviewing admin should note that this editor does seem to have difficulties understanding deletion policies. This editor seemed to discover this deletion discussion after I strongly objected to their speedy deletion (!) nomination of National Hindu Awareness Campaign Nepal a constitutional campaign in Nepal led by a former parliamentarian which has met with the Prime Minister and has achieved national English-language media coverage. Yet they think this is crap is notable on the back of coverage from those who brought us the infamous London Piss Dungeon! AusLondonder (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They also consistently nominated articles for speedy that are not suitable, eg a peer reviewed journal Electronic Book Review and the Roman Catholic Church in Turkmenistan. Both with actual claims to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete outside some coverage made by a couple of news media blogs (which usually runs independent from the main source) at the time of release, some of whom are tabloids that don'tmeet our guidelines in reliable sources, this game received 0 long-term coverage. Fails wp:gng and wp:notnews Pokerkiller (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable troll. A few weakish refs. Carrite (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article clearly has multiple sources that are giving it significant coverage, and were written solely about the game. The persistent coverage point is invalid, as many video games receive coverage only when they're released and are still considered notable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Torchiest: It's not invalid, it's the WP:GNG. If other articles exist based on coverage limited to a few days, they don't meet the GNG either. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: The GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There's nothing in that guideline saying coverage must last for months or years. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to this topic. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -mostly pr Carrite, & pr nominator Huldra (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the arguments about the fact it would be a "video game" are not right. It is not notorious as a video game. It is a provocation/joke/ripost, whatever but in that area.
  The question is therefore to determine if this "provocation/joke/..." is notorious.
  For me, the answer is no. The links given in the article are primary sources in the sense that they participate to the provocation/joke or to its promotion. We would need several references in higher quality newspapers to assess notoriaty (eg NYT, LeMonde, Guardian, Das Bield, ...) Pluto2012 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient coverage for this to pass WP:GNG, albeit barely. SST^flyer 11:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's an WP:ATTACK page, pure internet trolling Kraxler (talk) 20:21, 12 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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MSP Intermark[edit]

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

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

Fails notability guidelines. References are dead links and, if they were to be alive, would have been non-notable sources. Nothing came up in Google News or Google. Author is a SPA [29] CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability not established. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Six of eight refs appear to be from article subject's self-published site. Information provided by article is not particularly important or encyclopedic.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 5 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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectika (festival)[edit]

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

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

PROD contested by IP without giving any reason. The subject hardly has any coverage given the annual recurring nature of the event. Fails WP:NEVENTS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: National level news paper The Times of India took notice of this festival which is rare for any college festival. That Times of India(TOI) news is of 2014, TOI also took notice of it in 2013 also. National level Hindi news also taking their note. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  13:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are various notability points mentioned on WP:EVENT and "took note" is not one of them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:EVENT is saying that event should be "Worthy of Notice". The Times of India (TOI) is not only largest selling English daily in India but also in World in terms of circulation. TOI finds it "worthy of notice" and "took note" of this event. This event is not notable unless someone proves that these news are paid news.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  04:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have been interacting on many pages for now; thanks for hounding, and its quite clear that you lack competency to understand many a simple things; sorry to point it out. There is no in-depth coverage, or lasting effects of the event, or coverage outside geoscope, or diversity of coverage, etc etc points that are listed in guideline. Also, the minglebox link that you are posting is not WP:RS. http://www.minglebox.com/aboutus is a student's portal. Dainik Bhaskar which is a newspaper with headquarters in MP cared to write exactly 10 sentences about this event in Raipur. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't WP:ACCUSE, there are other boards to raise this "hound" issue, not here. I will clear myself regarding sources, 2013 Times of India, 2014 Times of India. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  05:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps if more sourcing is added, a lot more , then it can be kept. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the TOI mention is insufficient for this article to meet WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs), 13:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 11 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) Kraxler (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Manning[edit]

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

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

Delete: cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate VICTIM; any post 9/11 notability would appear to be a continuing seam or thread from that day onward. I know, I know: I must be a heartless bastard. Quis separabit? 22:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, notability isn't fleeting, the book referenced in the article appears to be self published by Lauren's husband and apparently hasn't sold many copies based on it being ranked below #375,000 in books by sales volume. Nefariousski (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real reason offered for deletion. WP:VICTIM has nothing to do with WP:N. WP:VICTIM is all about criminal events, not victim-survivors of 9/11. This nomination is bogus. Toffanin (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe delete if she can't be mentioned somewhere else as my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SisterTwister is a diligent editor, but I have found, as here: Douglas Al-Bazi that her assertions of a lack of sources can be, well, what can I say, I have found extensive sourcing on AFDs brought or supported by SisterTwister, who works very quickly and deserves credit for spotting many, many legitimate candidates for deletion. However, re: Lauren Manning, take a look at this quick search [30] which begins with this full profile in vogue magazine [31].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just needs better sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a trout to the Nom for bringing this without a thorough WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing Results of simple search on 9/11 "Lauren Manning" [32] results on google news [33]. ARticle just needs editing and sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Her book Unmeasured Strength can also be sourced [34].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Manning's memoir, Unmeasured Strength is now bluelinked. Both articles (person and book) need work. This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep and put the time you would have spend refuting this remarkably lame AFD into improving the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the page is weak not because the topic is unimportant, but because it is too painful for many of us to deal with. Even after all these years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussionsE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep" -- interesting. @E.M. Gregory: are you moving pawns around a chess board or making marionettes dance? I see no keep consensus as of yet, much less a SNOWBALL. Quis separabit? 17:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per above as well as per sources - This is something that should never be deleted and should never have even been nominated, An article likes this needs improving not deleting period. –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I mean no disrespect but you should try to base your judgments on guidelines not sentimentality. Your rationale offers no reasoning, just emotion. 9/11 was devastating (I live in Lower Manhatan and was at work a quarter of a mile away from Ground Zero at 26 Federal Plaza that morning, just so you know I am not a heartless dick) but try to keep perspective. Quis separabit? 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks as though User:Davey2010 based him assessment on policy: "as per sources." Followed with an expression of strong feeling, Quis separabit? responded based on feelings. It's oK to have feelings, as long as assessments are based on policy, facts, sources.08:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory's correct - I did say "per above as well as per sources" so it wasn't all strong feelings but yes I do have strong feelings when it comes to stuff like this, I very very rarely express my feelings here but I don't see a problem just aslong as you keep it relevant and to the point, Wow I'd imagine that was absolutely terrifying!, I've never thought that about anyone on here at all, You nominated based on notability so it's all cool :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Being a victim of a horrible event is one thing, but the point here is notability. And for this person to be behind a well-received book that's brought them recognition, with the likes of NPR, the New York Times, etc mentioning her story and her book prominently, then it looks like she passes the notability bar easily. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Enough references provided above to confirm notability. ABF99 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to meeting Notability for her story, RS articles from 2008 to 2012, she is also invited to comment on related issues as late as June 2014.[35] Nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON and the article can be easily cleaned up. 009o9 (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources are reliable (NY Times, USA Today, CNN). The book by her husband about her got some national attention (although it itself cannot be considered a neutral source, but it adds to the story). The article is still a stub, and needs work. I was easily able to find 6 NY Times articles specifically about her or with substantial information about her. LaMona (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]