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 00:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ebou Adams (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to a Premier League side. However, since he has not actually played, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG, and presently fails NFOOTY. Can be recreated when he plays in a WP:FPL. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails 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. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has not played in a fully professional league, fails NFOOTY. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:33, 14 March 2016 (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. discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandhir Singh Chahal (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 asserts notability, but I was unable to find any sources on him whatsoever, and most results from Google were just social media. The article is quite promotional in tone, too. The creator has provided a handful of YouTube links on the talk page, but I don't know if these suffice in regards to sourcing. GAB^Hello! 22:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Other than various social media profiles, absolutely no evidence of notability. General Ization ^Talk 00:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Considering that the Mr. Punjab contest itself is not notable at the English Wikipedia, it's a safe bet that the first runner-up in the 2015 contest, with no other credible claim to offer, will not be notable here. General Ization ^Talk 01:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, borderline speedy. Zero evidence of WP:BIO notability or WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. References on the article are all press releases. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:NSKATE, see http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00003679.htm Hergilei (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2016 (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 rescope. czar 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lara (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 initially tagged a CSD on this and reverted it. Daniel Lara seems to be an internet celebrity. However, there are no references to this, so it's hard to tell if it's the internet celebrity or a same name situation. Or even if that internet celebrity would be worthy of a stand alone page. Damn Daniel which this article refers to redirects to List of Internet phenomena. May this one should also?? I decided to bring it over to XFD and let others have an opinion on it. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E. Aside from going viral on social media once, he's not known for anything else. He remains (and likely will remain) a low profile individual and it was a single event (criteria from BLP1E). Elaenia (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Damn Daniel and rewrite the article from the video's "perspective". While Daniel Lara is not notable per WP:BLP1E, the Damn Daniel video and its corresponding catchphrase is notable as it has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Damn Daniel as per Samuel Wiki, might as well incorporate the material into that article. GAB^Hello! 13:40, 13 March 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Ray (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 seems to be beyond hope of nailing down how the subject is notable in what appears to be a resume-building exercise (some of which I've recently removed). There appears to be no good reliable sources, either in the article or online, backing up the notability of the subject. Also, the author has been primarily fixated on this and the related subject TriYoga, suggestive of WP:COI. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that the first AfD closed due to no consensus, which appears to be the case only one editor participated, and they !voted for a merge to TriYoga. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as fairly blatant promotionalism. Quis separabit? 17:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hardly any independent coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2016 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAPUI5 (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 evidence of notability for this product. Few Google hits, nothing that's substantial, independent, and in reliable sources. What little there is consists of instructions and documentation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found a few links, particularly at News, but nothing convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note: I am SAP employee and involved with the SAPUI5 project, see my conflict of interest declaration. I think I'm still allowed to contribute facts to the notability/deletion discussion:

• There are 282,000 Google hits, which is not really "few". It's rather similar to (or higher than) for similar libraries like ExtJS (378,000), mootools (345,000) DHTMLX (283,000), Ample SDK (208,000), qooxdoo (145,000), and jQWidgets (87,700), which all have a Wikipedia page where notability is not questioned. Comparing SAPUI5 to those others in Google Trends also indicates that SAPUI5 is at least as important to public interest as those are.
• There are books written specifically about SAPUI5, like "Getting Started with SAPUI5" (also available in German translation) and "SAPUI5 - The Comprehensive Guide"
• There are references in print media like the popular German magazine iX
• There are references in online publications like computerworld.com and infoworld.com.
• There are scientific theses covering SAPUI5 like this one (Swedish; analysis whether UI5 can satisfy the expectations for user interfaces at a time where mobile devices are ubiquitous), this one (goal-oriented performance models, tested with UI5) and this one (evaluating JavaScript MVC frameworks for usage in collaborative web applications)

There are more, but as far as I have understood, these references should be sufficient to establish notability. Please excuse that I have posted the same content on the article's talk page - I am not sure where the notability discussion will be predominantly led. Akudev (talk)(COI) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to address your Google comment at the moment, before I have a chance to review the rest of what you've written: The number that Google shows at the top of search results—282,000, as you said—is meaningless, and has been for many years. If you actually page through the search results, Google says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 53 already displayed." If you click the link to show other results anyway, it shows about 540—most of which amounts to technical documentation for the product, which doesn't contribute to a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right, I am surprised! (well, I get 83 hits initially, maybe due to google.de, but anyway) However, this also happens for other libraries: mootools stops after 93 hits for me (and 570 when clicking "more). And even the extremely popular AngularJS only has 95 "relevant" hits initially (and 396 when clicking "more"!). This was using the Chrome browser. Trying Firefox stops at page 76 (with this query). Even searching for "USA" just returns 190 relevant results (and stops at page 53 when clicking "show more")! So this must be a quirk of the Google search. I'm sure there are more than 400 or 800 references to AngularJS and more than 530 references to the USA in the web... Trusting these numbers would make SAPUI5 about as popular as AngularJS or the USA, which is of course not the case. The Google Trends link I gave returns data that looks more trustworthy than this. Akudev (talk)(COI) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The two-sentence mentions of SAPUI5 in each of the two online publication articles you referenced don't amount to "substantial coverage". The library is mentioned only as one item on a list of SAP's current activities. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In my search I see that a lot of links to sources that do not meet WP:RS/WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soulburn (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 independent, verifiable sources in the article. Could not find any independent, verifiable sources online either. The reference section only provides booking information. The text reads as a promotional story and a personal history. The parallel article on nl.wiki was deleted, while the Dutch Wikipedia tends to be more inclusive than en.wiki. gidonb (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found a few hits: [1] (German) from de:Powermetal.de, [2] from Terrorizer, [3] (German) from Rock hard. I think it would be helpful to have someone who understands German better than me comment on these sources. I tried searching for Dutch sources, but I am completely incompetent at Dutch. At least I can figure out a few words of each sentence in German. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate Thank you for the excellent research! I'll accept these three as valid sources and withdraw the nomination! gidonb (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Newly created company with no sustained coverage and no credible claim to notability. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 19:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As search results found not enough coverage to claim notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandoFWS (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 March 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no notable results for "STMPD RCRDS" on Google, save for one mention in the Music Times, and, even combined with the two in-article references, that's not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:54, 12 March 2016 (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) IagoQnsi (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The above closer had somehow messed the close up so I've reverted and reclosed, Hopefully that's fixed it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open API (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 written more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia article, and it has been for a very long time (the essay-like tag has been there for over seven years ). An "Open API" isn't really a standalone topic; it's just a Web 2.0 buzzword (WP:NOTDIC) about making APIs public. I would suggest this article be merged into Open data, but I don't think there's any content here that could be merged without having to be substantially revised or rewritten due to the unencyclopedic tone. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while wording should be corrected - article itself covers fairly notable subject with quite substantial amount of links leading to it. SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. OpenAPI is very different from OpenData, and deserves an article of its own. E.g. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/open-api-policy.pdf http://nuviun.com/content/its-about-time-open-apis-finally-burst-onto-healthcares-sluggish-scene Ross-c (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep distinct subject, worthy of encyclopdic coverage. Artw (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep There are a number of sources about the idea and it appears that it's more of that, and idea, than a product. The first 50 Google hits make that clear. The problem is that the term is generic and several links do not discuss the concept. The article needs to be rewritten if it's kept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2016 (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Zaman (journalist) (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 came across this article at DYK. The article is written in a very promotional tone, almost like a CV. All the images in the article are claimed as CC 4.0 with no evidence of ownership by the article creator indicating a perhaps close alignment with the article subject or potentially copyright violation. My main concern is whether the article topic is notable enough i.e. meets WP:GNG. Ref 1 is a video of an independently organised TED talk so is a primary source. Ref 2 basically states that she's a news anchor. Ref 3, 4 are interviews by the article subject, Ref 5 basically states she's written two articles for Tehelka. Ref 6 is a Dawn article covering an event she attended. Ref 7 states she's a correspondent for IBNLive,Ref 8 is a case study where Radical Reflex describes the work they did for her on a website. Ref 9 is a blog, Ref 10 is an article written by the article subject, Ref 11 is the article subject's facebook page. I don't think there is enough evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cowlibob (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also it seems the creator is indef blocked as a sockpuppet per this investigation: [[4]] Cowlibob (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Articles does most certainly need improvement. However, I think the coverage Zaman has received in various media meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First off, I getting sick of editors and deletion nominators labeling interviews like the two sourced in the article as primary sources "by the article subject". They're independent sources like nearly every other interview, so stop it. Second, the journalist actually has garnered coverage to meet WP:GNG, as this search would also find that she has been covered in some reliable sources that do a fair amount more that just mention her. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I do have a concern about her jewellry project, which looks promotional, but clearly notable as art journalist and curator. So, keep and clean. I would remove the gallery of her jewellery, since as work of art it had not been exhibited in any museum or gallery and all mention of eat started with "A journalist she also started her own jewellery brand". Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I removed the promotional images and statements from jewelry and design part. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft and userfy perhaps as a compromise even if the article is not as solid as it could be because unless better coverage is found, all of this is still questionable for the applicable notability. At best, I'm willing to say keep only if this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 16 March 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Qwarforth (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)

Piano For Trees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Music For Headphones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Article about Musician who does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Searches have brought up little to support notability worthy of inclusion. One does not inherit notability from colleagues. This musician has won no major awards or charted on any music charts. As I do not feel the musician is notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia I have also nominated both articles on his albums to be included. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 19:09, 15 March 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Youth 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)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Quis separabit? 19:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per the arguments below. Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Having her work as part of Malmö Konsthall collection and exhibiting in Brooklyn Museum she easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. The article may not be mature yet, but definitely has to stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorian1977, I don't see how this passes WP:GNG. Where are the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources? That being said, artists often get their works exhibited in museums (it's a common thing) but we often consider them notable if their works has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. In this case, they would pass WP:ARTIST#4 but that is not the case here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology Malmö Konsthall is one of the major museums and exhibition halls in Sweden. Her works are in that collection. The same may be said about Brooklyn Museums. So, what do you consider significant coverage then if not this? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having their works in museum is not a ticket for a Wikipedia article. That being said, you probably do not know the difference between WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Do you? WP:GNG is the general notability guidelines. Subject of an article often meet WP:GNG, based on the subject's significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. While WP:ARTIST is a subject -specific notability guidelines. Subject of an article doesn't need to passes WP:GNG if it already pass WP:ARTIST and vice-visa. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider MoMA, Brooklyn Museum and Malmö Konsthall sites as reliable? This makes it passing WP:GNG. For the WP:ARTIST it passes by "(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" and "(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Cheers. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as per Arthistorian1977. "The person's work (or works) ... is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."--Theredproject (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:Artist with works in major permanent collections. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've read over and agree with the astute analysis by Arthistorian1977, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:WDAFD. (non-admin closure) The Origins of Heaven (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not convinced that Metropolitan Borough Council leaders are de facto notable. Uhooep (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retract Sorry I didn't realise Borough Councils had such great variation in terms of the size of their respective populations. This one (284,500) seems large compared to some English Borough Councils which have populations <16,000 so perhaps keep? Uhooep (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2016 (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 for deletion, for various reasons as delineated below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I cannot see any point in this incoherent article on the supernatural, apparently 'inspired' by a TV show and not written in English. TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no sense at all. GAB^Hello! 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT — Maile (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsalvageable. Anmccaff (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. It's very difficult to even determine what this is. If this is notable, it would be best to start over from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Best I can tell, at best this is a rambling essay. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not encyclopedic. Chris vLS (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found that incomprehensible. It has to be a Delete in lieu of someone making the case for notability in a language structure I can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Many things in the article could be sourced if hunted down properly on web. I will try doing that. But I see no use of this current article. Hence suggesting deletion and then redirecting to Bhoot (ghost) where such "types of ghosts" can be discussed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:10, 18 March 2016 (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. A clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Oman traffic accident (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)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article does not purport to do anything other than report on a serious traffic accident. It does not indicate that the event has any significance other than as a report of a current event. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. This event may have had importance immediately after it first occurred, but it is insignificant by today's standards. The only sources are from news organizations, and were produced on the day of the event, supporting the claim of this event not being verifiable enough for inclusion based on WP:NOTNEWS. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No lasting significance to an unusually deadly, but otherwise routine, accident. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One of the worst such incidents in the country's history and officials began discussing a raft of measures long after the event --Benchwarming (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing any depth of coverage, particularly broad coverage, or significant international coverage here. TheBlinkster (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2016 (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 List of Maximals#Technorganic. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longhorn (Transformers) (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)

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Tagged as lacking notability and being written in an in-universe style since 2010. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Maximals#Technorganic. This is a tricky one, as the name is pretty generic. However, I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Google Books results look mostly unrelated, but there are a few novels. No matter how many extra search terms I add, I still get lots of biology or steer-related results. I admit that I gave up a bit quickly after becoming exasperated with the number of unrelated hits. Standard Google results return open wikis and fan sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. The one sentence description provided by List of Maximals#Technorganic is sufficient. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2016 (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. Overall consensus is that he meets LAWYER & GNG & As the nom hasn't objected to any of the replies I'm wrapping it up as Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eifion Roberts (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 don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Also stood for Parliament but finished third. Uhooep (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A dedicated entry in Who's Who (UK). This source was used in compiling the article with details in the Reference section. I have always worked on the basis that this publication is the UK standard on notability and that anyone who was/is notable enough to command an entry is notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know if this source has been used to define if an individual meets Wikipedia notability but in my view it should be. I have not taken part in any AfD discussion on the subject of circuit judges so can't comment other than to say that I would not have been part of any consensus to delete had any of the subjects demonstrated the degree of notability of Roberts. Graemp (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable judge. Andrew D. (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Queen's Counsel, and according to WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel or serjeant at law or senior counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO (which relates to significant and well known awards or honours)". DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (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. Overall consensus is that he meets LAWYER & GNG & As the nom hasn't objected to any of the replies I'm wrapping it up as Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Butler (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 don't believe Circuit judges in England and Wales are de facto notable individuals. There are over 600 of these and they rank below high court judges. All of my recent AFD nominations of English and Welsh Circuit judges have reached a consensus to delete, but of course each AFD should still be judged independently. Uhooep (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable judge. Andrew D. (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Queen's Counsel, and according to WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel or serjeant at law or senior counsel, shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO (which relates to significant and well known awards or honours)".DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional obituary in The Times, in itself a good claim to notability. And in the Telegraph. Obits in two major national newspapers argues extremely strongly for notability. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As DuncanHill points out, WP:LAWYERS cites QC as notable. Sounds like you're clearing out some other underbrush, though, keep it up! Chris vLS (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2016 (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 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chimestone (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)

Previously deleted by AfD here. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND JMHamo (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (possibly WP:SPEEDY#G11): The only claims in the current article that might provide notability appear to be against WP:NBAND#7 (that their album sold 15000 copies and they "were chosen by The Seattle Times as one of the city’s most promising and talented new musical acts"). This is not evidenced by the Seattle Times 1993 source (an uncritical promotional interview that doesn't contribute to NBAND#1), the article is largely unreferenced with no further coverage found, and it's not obvious that even if the claims were substantiated that they'd be strong enough to meet NBAND#7 anyway. Notability of the NEVE Recording Console is WP:NOTINHERITED. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG and is completely unsubstantiated. Seems to be WP:Promotional  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionable like the 1st AfD, none of this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability is still lacking. The sourcing in the article does not demonstrate notability nor can I find any coverage that would establish notability. --Whpq (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is an article about a university center, which belongs to the university of which we have no article. Unless in special circumstances, such organizations would not be notable, and, indeed, there is not a slightest indication of notability in the article. It could have been notable as a building if built by a famous architect for example but this has not been shown either.Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Unable to find reliable sources to verify the notability of Misbahudduja University (which seems to be a distance learning organisation). In addition the article is about a "Centre" of the university. Clearly does not belong to Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: The author of the article seems to have created multiple articles (Wahabpora,Mosiviyat Enclave,Al-Mehdi Chowk) with questionable notability and all of them contain references to "Almehdi Islamic Library, Raheislam Organisation". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to make a claim of notability. Also fails WP:NGEOG, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the general notability guidelines. There is no independent coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew. @Shabidoo: As the only substantial editor, feel free to redirect it as you please. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Competition Mahjong scoring rules (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)

Almost-exact duplicate of Guobiao Majiang mahir256 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...agreed. I made this page to remove this from the main article which is already quite long and I didn't know there was a page for it. Please change it to a re-direct to the Guobiao page as some know it as competition mahjong. I'll add part of the header to the Guibiao Majiang article. I don't think a discussion is necesary, I'm the only user who edited content (not corrections) and its a pretty clear cut case. Shabidoo | Talk 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of harmonizing article titles, I've decided to keep this article in favor of having the other one redirect to this one. Please close this as soon as possible. mahir256 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...but we should copy the other article and paste it into this one. Shabidoo | Talk 23:17, 15 March 2016 (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. Michig (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Noonan (author) (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 local author. Has some local coverage, but limited. Borders on advertisement. Fails WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably autobio. Certainly spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete promo spam or at least WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 00:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Henrietta Stewart (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Lady Stewart was Awarded the OBE. Graemp (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fine article with plenty of sources. Andrew D. (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Davies (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)

Twice failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CBE Graemp (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of Circuit judge's and District judges, while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) was de facto notable in itself. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here,here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a set view on the UK honours system. Recipients of the CBE merit inclusion regardless of any other issues. Graemp (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Absurd nomination. Plenty of sources and content. Andrew D. (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per long consensus that the CBE proves notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he is involved in the articles Oxford by-election, 1938, Popular Front (UK), and now Patrick Gordon Walker. In fact, I was researching those articles and came across this debate, which I would not be able to do if the article was deleted. --Dagko (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aline Mackinnon (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)

Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In 1938 the lack of coverage given to women in the volumes of Who's Who gave rise to the establishment of the biographical publication 'The Lady's Who's Who' by the Pallas Publishing Company. Mackinnon was regarded as notable enough to command a place in this reference work. This publication has been used as a source for this article.

Another recognised determiner of notability in the UK was to have an obituary in The Times and Mackinnon's obituary appeared on 10 January 1970, at a time when perhaps the role of women was becoming more appreciated. This obituary has been used as a source for this article.

The National Portrait Gallery in London has a portrait of her in the National Photographic Record that was established in 1917 and made a point of photographing every British Notability through into the 1960s. In 1930 she was deemed notable enough to be invited in for a portrait session for this purpose. The portrait in the article is from this session and there is an external link to her NPG page. Graemp (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources and content. Compare with an article created by the nominator such as Wangdi Norbu. No contest. Andrew D. (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most notable deceased politician who is no longer alive and has ceased to be. — Cirt (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Oswald Moon (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Entry in Who's Who (UK). Notable physician and writer. Graemp (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks fine. Andrew D. (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As well as having some political involvement, he had a career as a physician, publishing some books. He passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable deceased politician and medical doctor. — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Scott Gatty (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awarded the OBE. Graemp (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources and no reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. [{WP:BEFORE|The nom hasn't even bothered to search]]....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Scaramanga-Ralli (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)

Failed parliamentary and London County Council candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). author. Graemp (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable author. Andrew D. (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Cope Morgan (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)

Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Awarded the MBE. Graemp (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obituary in The Times = notable. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a mention here. He wrote a book. But my open-sweep of news found not much here plus I could not find the obituary (hidden behind a paywall?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Times obituary is not hidden behind a pay wall but freely accessible to anyone with a freely available UK library card, as is also the case with anyone wanting to access Who's Who. Just to clarify for our American friend Tomwsulcer, he passes WP:ANYBIO#1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" for being awarded the MBE. He also passes WP:LAWYERS "A lawyer who has received an appointment that indicates pre-eminence within the profession, such as Queen's Counsel shall be treated in the same manner as a person who satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO" for being appointed as a Queen's Counsel. Unfortunately, Tomwsulcer's intervention means that we don't have a consensus in this AfD discussion, unless he chooses to withdraw his vote to delete. Graemp (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well, supposing there is an obituary notice in The Times, there are still some problems here. One of my tests -- admittedly unofficial -- is pageviews, and usually articles with substantial pageviews, such as 10+ per day, don't get deleted (from my past experience). This article has 1 pageview per day, although I suppose we could account for that because the subject's prime years were in the past century, before the advent of Internet and easily-checkable sources. Next problem: please read the first sentence of the current (16 March 2016) lede paragraph : Sydney Cope Morgan MBE QC (25 October 1887 – 14 October 1967), was a British barrister and Liberal Party politician. Then, the article goes straight into his early years, which (in my view) gives too much information about his trying to win a seat in Parliament, coming close, but no cigar. So, that's it? What did he do? What is he famous for? What did he accomplish? Or to put it in Wikipedia's terms, What is he notable for? Is he notable for simply being a barrister? Hmmmmm? The British media chose not to write about him because they didn't consider him notable. If he did in fact receive an award, what did he do to earn that award? That's what I'd like to know. Now, if you can find sources indicating otherwise, I'll be glad to change my vote, although I think the article needs a rewrite and especially trimming down. And my being 'American' has nothing to do with this, I'll axe or rescue articles based on the subject's notability not their nationality.--11:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: I agree, you being American does have nothing to do with this, but you being unable to check references from key sources is. If I was unable to do this basic thing, I'd probably butt out of any AfD. Check out the logo top left - an incomplete Globe; we don't delete articles for being incomplete, if we did then there would be a heck of a lot of stubs that would need to be deleted. The article defines his notability and is properly sourced with in-line citations. He may not pass Tomwsulcer notability criteria but fortunately he meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Graemp (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can be persuaded if you show sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Also according to the paragraph above ANYBIO it says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per long consensus that an obituary in The Times proves notability. Although note that consensus is also that an MBE doesn't qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree consensus that MBE doesn't automatically qualify, but entry in Who's Who suggests notability and taken together should satisfy ANYBIO#1. Not all recipients of the MBE make the Who's Who cut. Graemp (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Morgan (politician) (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)

Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awarded the gold medal of the Alliance française of Paris in the examination for the Diplôme Supérieur. Youngest woman candidate in the 'flapper election' of 1929, the first to grant the vote to young women, so her candidacy epitomised that election. Graemp (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Excellent article; lots of content and sources. Andrew D. (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is determined not by how many elections you have won, but how the press received you. As Graemp pointed out, she was notable for other reasons. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no serious reason to delete.Berti118 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Edgar Jalland (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Judge. passes WP:LAWYERS. Entry in Who's Who (UK). Graemp (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fine article with adequate content and sources. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Jane Joachim (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)

Three times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Held high party office. Entry in Who's Who (UK). Graemp (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Adequate content and sources. Andrew D. (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Entry in the UK Who's Who appears adequate proof of notability, as does Chair of the Women's Liberal Democrats. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered to search....So closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beesley (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — There are a variety of factors that would justify the article's inclusion: (1) Beesley received a CBE, which satisfies WP:ANYBIO as a distinguished commendation, (2) an award bears his name, reflecting his status as one of the "most influential transport economists of his time" (University of Leeds), (3) the awarding institution certainly appears to be international in scope: Thredbo/University of Sydney Business School, (4) he received obituaries in a journal (Transport Reviews) and at least one national paper (The Guardian); the latter describing him as among "the most gifted industrial economists of his time", and (5) he also had a series of lectures in his honour: The Beesley Lectures, at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Losing in a parliamentary election wouldn't trump the above indicators of his notability. The Origins of Heaven (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above, clearly notable. GiantSnowman 08:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - CBE. Graemp (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per long consensus that the CBE proves notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. Plus DNB entry. Uhooep, you seem fixated on these people being failed parliamentary candidates. That's not all they did in their lives. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2016 (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) sst✈ 14:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Valérie Hash (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: as non-notable designer. Quis separabit? 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep she gets quite of few gnews hits including in depth like http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2015/07/09/anne-valerie-hash-comptoir-des-cotonniers LibStar (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lots of name checks in Google Books and items such as The World's Most Influential Fashion Designers indicate adequate notability. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harcourt (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Awarded the CBE. Graemp (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Emlyn-Jones (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate and non-notable circuit judge. If he were a High Court judge I wouldn't nominate. Uhooep (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not just a parliamentary candidate, not just a circuit judge; notable - entry in Who's Who (UK) with portraits of him held by the National Portrait Gallery. Graemp (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: For reasons listed above. Ross-c (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Clarke (physicist) (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Awarded the OBE. Graemp (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adequate sources and content. Andrew D. (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Keep per UK Who's Who. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Logan Rait (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He was notable for being the youngest candidate to stand at the 1923 UK General Election. Graemp (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia does not confer a notability freebie for being the youngest, oldest, fattest, thinnest, etc., person to do an otherwise non-notable thing — with the extremely rare exception that would require a far greater volume of sourceability than has been shown here (such as the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell in 2010), an unelected candidate for office is normally eligible for a Wikipedia article only if they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of their candidacy. But no claim of preexisting notability has been made here, and the sourcing is almost entirely to primary sources with the few reliable ones not even approaching the outermost suburbs of the volume necessary to grant him the O'Donnell treatment for the candidacy itself. If he'd been the youngest person ever to run for the British Parliament in the entire history of Britain, then there might be a case for inclusion on that basis — though even then, it would still be dependent on the quality of sourcing and would not be an automatic inclusion freebie — but merely being the youngest non-winning candidate in one particular year doesn't cut it in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not the job of Wikipedia to confer notability on anyone but to recognise when that notability had been conferred by those that had a greater appreciation of the subject matter. How notable was it in 1923 for someone aged 21 to stand for the UK parliament? Given the amount of national press coverage his candidacy received at the time, it was very notable, far in excess of the average candidate. Britain's premier weekly magazine The Illustrated London News was among those who covered his candidacy and part of their coverage is used in the article, reliably sourced with in-line citation. The portrait of him in the article comes from this coverage. I could have chosen any number of sources of the time but settled on this one and saw no need to duplicate reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with using reliable primary sources to supplement an article, which I have done here. People are entitled to their opinion as to what constitutes notability but your opinion seems based on America in 2010 rather than from the perspective of Britain in the 1923. I think we should assess Rait on the latter not the former. Candidates are not inherently non-notable just because they did not get elected, we need to assess them on their individual merits. One of the ways we do that is to assess if they received national press coverage. Those are the relevant points we should take from WP:POLOUTCOMES. Graemp (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Murray (Scottish politician) (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: and journalist and author and prominent early figure in the Scottish government movement. Graemp (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Two collections of his papers are held in the National Library of Scotland showing the variety of events he had an involvement in. The article needs to be expanded but the subject is clearly notable, passing WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Stuart Mowat (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK) passes WP:LAWYERS. Graemp (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of Circuit judge's and District judges, while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) was de facto notable in itself. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here,here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mowat's entry in Who's Who has nothing to do with circuit judges or Orders of the British Empire. Graemp (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things to note. First, consensus is that an entry in Who's Who does not confer automatic notability, but it is a good indication that an individual may be notable. Second, consensus is that the MBE or OBE do not confer inherent notability (although taken together with other honours etc they may do), as they are very common, but the much rarer CBE (or higher award) does, since it is only awarded to people deemed exceptionally notable in their fields (and remember that just because someone is in an occupation not in the public eye and you may not have heard of them does not make them non-notable). If an individual is considered notable enough by the government to be honoured with a CBE then who are we at Wikipedia, which has articles on every minor pop star, sports or TV personality who may have been dribbled (and drivelled) about by fanboys/girls on the internet, to disagree? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He was a Sheriff Principal who presided over the fatal accident inquiry that reported in February 1991, following the Lockerbie bombing. He passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As explained by others above. Ross-c (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Rowley Elliston (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)

Four times failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). Awarded the OBE. Graemp (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep': Also mayor of Ipswich. http://www.oasi.org.uk/History/Chaldaean/Chaldaean.php Not sufficient in itself, but along with the OBE sums up to notability. Ross-c (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Alfred Gerothwohl (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)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK). In addition to his academic status and published works he passes WP:ANYBIO#1 for receiving Grand Officer of the Order of the Crown of Roumania, Officer of the Crown of Belgium, Order of the White Rose of Finland and Knight of the Crown of Italy. Graemp (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graemp: - It's spelt "Romania". AusLondonder (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: - It was spelt "Roumania" in the UK at the time. Graemp (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep: Entry in Who's Who plus other backing. Ross-c (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]