Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 29 November	1 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JFPI Corporation

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

I cannot find any third party, non-user generated sources that suggest that this is a notable company. The sole source is Mbendi, the information on which is user-generated. There are several mentions of the company on Google Books, these are in books which derive their content from Wikipedia articles, and on other user-generated sites such as LinkedIn, AllAfrica and Who's Who in SA. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced this company really exists. If it does and is really "Africa's largest holding company" one would think there would be some better sources. The CEO seems to exist but I am not sure he is notable either. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. I find tons of citations for JFPI. Especially in South African press. Have you even looked? The quote "Africa's largest holding company" is disputable, so dispute that rather.Andynct (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In every case, JFPI Corp has been added to articles w/out cites, then those Wiki articles are mirrored and copied by press. Even the phrasing and sentence structures are the same. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, see your point. See if anybody has anything to add.Andynct (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference I can find in an reliable source is this in which the authors lazily use the Mbendi site as their source. This company probably exists, probably owns a mine or two in DRC and might be doing something interesting, but if so, almost nobody that we would regard as a RS seems to have noticed. Delete as not meeting GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources is neither offered nor to be found to demonstrate notability or even verifiability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Lăcătușu

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

There's nothing to indicate this individual might be notable, as defined by WP:PROF, WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and other relevant policies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, as I explained when I removed the prod, there is a Wiki article on her in Romanian which contains more information. I added the "expand" template to the top of her page. She is there in Google, but all sources aren't in English. Give the article some time to be worked on, by someone like Ipigott, who knows several languages. The claim that the subject doesn't pass GNG or other policies is disingenuous, or it shows the nominator didn't bother doing WP:BEFORE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You begin by pointing out that the subject has an article on ro.wiki, but omit to note that that is largely a failed project, and that the article in question cites no sources, thus failing the most basic test of verifiability.
- You go on to engage in special pleading - Google hits exist but aren't in English, more time is needed, let's expand from a worthless article, let's bring in polyglot editors who might be able to conjure up sources out of thin air. (I'll note, for the record, that Romanian is my native language, and that I was able to turn up nothing quotable.)
- You end up by impugning my motives - "disingenuous", and baselessly chiding me - "didn't bother doing WP:BEFORE". Well, I'm sorry, but the subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and you have done nothing to dispel that assertion. Show us that coverage, and maybe the article can be kept. (And no, an entry on a course syllabus is not tantamount to "significant coverage", no matter how hard one stretches the definition. It's a trivial biographical ephemeron that has no place in an encyclopedic biography.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whether or not publications are in the English language is a relatively meaningless issue for science bios because we usually check indexing services for numerical results. In this case, the main journal carrying the subject's work seems to be sufficiently obscure so as not even to be indexed by WoS. Taken with other observations made here, this appears to be a relatively uncontroversial case for deletion. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Like Biruitorul, I have looked at the Romanian article and the Romanian sources immediately accessible via Google. I have to agree that they are weak. As all her publications are in Romanian, I hardly think she would qualify for inclusion as a writer either.--Ipigott (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it's rare that I disagree with Ian, but in this case, I am finding multiple sources citing her research. As of yet, have not found biographical data, but she was apparently a specialist on pests and published books on aphids, termites and wasps, looking at the role of parasites within an ecosystem [1]. She has also been called an expert in a couple of papers I found [2], [3] the second one in French indicates that she classified aphids in a 20 year study. She published volumes for the Romanian Academy's series on Flora and Fauna (not likely they would have allowed that were she not notable [4] This book [5] has been cited repeatedly in research reports I have reviewed. It may well be that she is one of those scientists who are often cited and rarely written about, so until I can do more research, I am withholding a keep/delete response. (As I was attempting to post Agricola44 made his comment. I can say with certainty that is an incorrect statement. Having just completed some 30 bios of scientists in an editathon, foreign language sources are not properly reflected in stats. World Cat has 1 publication listed for a scientist that Russian sources claim wrote over 600 papers, as just one example). SusunW (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things you raise here, like the parasite paper from a symposium, are routine academic fodder and do not contribute to notability. The subject's books all seem to be listed in WorldCat, but, again, the problem is that their holdings are all basically in the single digits. For what you're asserting to be true, there would have to be a systematic exclusion of Romanian-language science publications by WorldCat, but I'm not aware that this is the case. There may be other avenues like GNG that are debatable, but it seems pretty clear using the standard references that the impact of her scientific work is indistinguishable from that of the average researcher. Agricola44 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

As I said, until I assess more, am not willing to yay or nay. I don't think it is a systematic exclusion, I think that as with anything, not all sources are on lBishops Stortford Book Awardine and we must recognize that statistics may not accurately reflect non-English usage or offline use. I also did not say she was the subject of the exclusion in WorldCat (point in fact the woman was Latvian, but a similar situation was encountered on a Kyrgyz woman, and others). SusunW (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure we understand each another because your prior wording saying that my analysis is incorrect because "foreign language sources are not properly reflected in stats" seems pretty clear. It is of course true that "statistics may not accurately reflect non-English usage or offline use" (my emphasis), but what matters is whether that is true here. My sense, so far, is that it is not. The basic problem is that notable scientific work tends to "surface", as it were, to be broadly used/acknowledged/cited/etc. (If, by "offline use" you mean checking a book out of the library, this doesn't count.) In the case of Lăcătușu, notability could (for example) take the form of her books being translated into English, implying there is a recognized demand for wider dissemination of her work. If we could find that such is the case, I think that many editors, including myself, would reconsider their position. WorldCat lists her untranslated publications as being held across Europe (Germany, Switzerland, France, England), but again, the problem is that the holdings are in the single digits and that there is no widely-recognized bias in WorldCat against Romanian-language scientific publications. It is therefore difficult to avoid the parsimonious conclusion that her work is simply not that notable. Agricola44 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Agricola44 I'm not disagreeing with your delete vote in the slightest, that is how you called it. I am cautioning the use of statistics as a means of evaluating importance. It also doesn't guarantee that biographical data is available or relevant. (Several people on Thomson Reuters most cited scientists have virtually no biographical information on-line). Point of fact, I have now spent about 3 hours reading documents and while I find lots of use of her research, I find no use (except the one French paper) outside of Romania and no biographical data whatsoever. IMO, it is impossible to evaluate whether she meets notability under Wikipedia guidelines from on-line sources. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. May I furnish friendly clarification of some misconceptions though? (1) We do, in fact, use "statistics" all the time as a means of evaluating importance, for example oodles of journal citations to a scientist's scientific work are taken as conclusive proof of impact, and therefore of notability. One can quibble about how much constitutes an "oodle", but the principle itself is not in question. (2) There is no need for biographical data to be available. Regarding again the typical science bio, scientific publications are WP:RS (though primary) and can therefore source basic biographical statements about a person: employment, areas of scientific interest/accomplishment, etc. This info is always sufficient for at least a stub and there's lots of precedent for it. In fact, an enormous fraction of WP science bios are of precisely this form (since most scientists notable by our standards do not have independent biographies). Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Agricola44 Thanks for your comments. I don't think that it is a misconception to say that hundreds of years, even thousands in some cases, have existed wherein we have no compiled data on how many times someone's work was used as a citation by another researcher. Having lived in multiple "developing countries" I can state unequivocally that the majority of sources except in the western world are not on-line, nor readily accessible and it is highly doubtful that statistics on usage accurately reflect more than the most recent contributions to our knowledge. Digitization projects are wonderful, but wars and other disasters have destroyed many archival materials. Thus, my cautionary statement. (2) Without a modicum of weighing the impact of someone's work, especially in light of the push to delete on WP, there is absolutely no point in creating a biography which recaps the brief biological information one can glean from their publishings, IMO. Many's the biography I have written where the published record of their work in traditional sources is paltry, but a delve into alternative sources shows multiple awards by their respective countries, recognition by their peers, and high international impact. Women and minorities works were rarely covered in mainstream publications. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it means you have to look in private archives, newspapers, organizations, etc. (3) Unless absolutely unavoidable, I would never create a stub on WP. It is the fastest route to getting a file deleted that I know. SusunW (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: this is veering too far off-topic. I've answered on your talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all publications in an obscure journal (language irrelevant) that result in GS h-index of only 8 and WoS h-index of 0 (that journal is evidently not even indexed in WoS). Science bios are relatively easy to assess in the notability context because publications/impact/etc are easy to check and in this case there is an obvious shortfall. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unable to find any reliable sources pointing to notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since several editors have evaluated the other page in Ro.wiki and have made a good case, I have to change my vote. Biruitorul was right that I did make a special pleading case, but I was hoping that a non-English search would turn up more info. I was wrong and change my vote. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I am not seeing enough about the subject to justify a keep !vote, I am seeing enough to worry about (possibly unavoidable) WP:BIAS, for reasons closely related to User:SusunW's arguments above. The subject's active academic career seems to have been entirely in communist-period Romania - which, given that Communist Romania tended to be isolationist in practice, even in period when it was trying to present a picture of openness, makes it far from surprising that she seems to have been published entirely in Romanian journals and at least mostly in Romanian, both of which will have restricted the availability of her work to Western scholars (Romanian journals on subjects like entomology will have had only limited international distribution, and papers being in Romanian will have been a further practical hurdle - and any such journals that ceased publication twenty or more years back are quite likely to have been missed by more recent citation indexes and thus be "obscure" today, no matter how prestigious they were in Romania at the time). As I understand matters, permission to submit to international journals, even in purely scientific subjects, tends to have been restricted to a favoured few. Assuming all this to be the case, I am actually quite impressed with the citation rates she seems to have obtained and is still, very slowly, building up - she seems to have some continuing academic impact, even if it is probably muffled (and limited to very specialised topics - my guess would be the Romanian distributions of certain types of insect) past the point where it is audible to Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry PWikinson. Had no intention of reverting your edits, they actually reflect exactly what I was trying to say. Meant to thank you for them. Hopefully I have now restored them. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Agricola44. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Rhodes

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP, as references cited are from online sports websites. Delta13C (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not notable and somewhat promotional DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem to have been a star collegiate player, never played in the NFL so no easy SNG pass there. Not seeing the sort of sources that would count to GNG for anything else. I note from a footer that somebody is trying to do a series of biographies of players from the Alabama National Championship team. Yeah, fine if you are talking about the Mike Rileys, but not so much for the big majority of team members, who do not pass GNG. I think this is a case of that here. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wayne Rhodes, the Tuscaloosa chiropractor, is not notable, and to the extent the article focuses on that in a way that could be perceived as promotional, that may be undue per WP:BALASPS or WP:NOTPROMOTION. On the other hand, Wayne Rhodes, the first-team All-SEC defensive back for the #3-ranked 1975 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, may be a different story. Significant coverage includes this from 1975. He also generated some press attention in 1975 when he was arrested and convicted for marijuana possession, but that's iffy in terms of whether it helps him over the GNG hump. In addition, and although not referenced in the article, he was picked by the AP as a first-team All-SEC defensive back on the 1975 All-SEC football team. There is no presumption that All-SEC players are notable, but his selection as such suggests there may be additional coverage. He was drafted by the Chicago Bears in the 4th round (108th pick) of the 1976 NFL Draft but was cut in August 1976 pre-season as reported here. I'm on the fence, but another article with significant coverage would probably tip me to the "Keep" side. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as borderline advertising, no evidence of notability by reference to reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebute Metta

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

Article does not cite any references and has had no ref tag since 2009 with no improvement. Fails GNG. Delta13C (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Google Books shows numerous references. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As G Kegg says, there are plenty of sources in Google Books and some of them are quite strong. It's clearly a fairly large place in Lagos. The nominator should have done a bit of research before this AFD. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:WP:GEOLAND states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Generally and geographical location with a name and proof it exists or existed are kept. Having no references is not a reason to delete nor is the amount of time it has the no ref tag on it. Google Book searches are also not a guarantee of notability they may lead to a reliable source to show notability but not a reliable source on their own, in fact the reference should be the book itself not Google. With the references which are now in the article this will be a keep even though some clean-up is still needed.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; GEOLAND, but gng as well. Jacona (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – kudos to Philafrenzy for sourcing and expanding this article. Legally recognized and sufficient coverage in third-party sources. sst✈^(discuss) 15:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Anita Krajnc Case

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

New article about a political activist (belongs to something called Toronto Pig Save) who has captured media attention with a stunt. Stunt: this political activist (opposes the eating of pork) created a sufficient traffic incident by offering water to pigs en route to a slaughterhouse that she managed to get herself charged with criminal mischief. Fails WP:BLP1E; a publicity stunt does not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try using "Anita Krajnc" in place of "The Anita Krajnc Case" as the search term and you will get tens of stories carried by reliable sources about the case. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change in search term yields significant results.(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internationally significant case. The sources they are spread over 75 days - enduring notability. See - WP:NOTNEWS - "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Complies with WP:GEOSCOPE considering that sources from Canada, USA, UK, Australia, India[6]], Germany,[7] New Zealand,[8] Serbia,[9] Indonesia,[10] Belgium,[11], Romania,[12] Portugal,[13] and Sweden,[14] cover the case including The Guardian. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico,[15] Italy,[16], Panama,[17] and Vietnam.[18] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over 150,000 sign online petitions in her support according to The Guardian.[19], The Telegraph describes the case a cause célèbre for animal welfare activists. WP:BLP1E is a strawman argument because this isn't Krajnc's biography but about the case. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gregory doesn't like those who oppose slaughtering pigs, not a good reason to delete. 111.119.239.252 (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 111.119.239.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oddly, this IP also showed up at a second AFD [20] supporting article creator User talk:Yogesh Khandke with comment: Keep: As per user Khandke..." WP:SOCKPUPPET. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't sock, the IP isn't me. I've been around for too long to make such stupid mistakes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy if someone runs a CU. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems like the usual case of incident, arrest, trial, sentencing, and appeals, so it seems like it is too early to determine enduring notability. I am also wondering to what extent WP:BLPCRIME is relevant. - Location (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOSCOPE because of coverage. This is clearly WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage, what a sad story —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yogesh Khandke, BabbaQ, and Wikimandia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: After re-reading the subsequent comments in this discussion, I have become convinced that deletion is appropriate pursuant to WP:SENSATION. Nevertheless, I think this is a close case. Although the event appears to have been "widely covered in diverse sources" (per WP:EVENTCRITERIA), I also think that the events described in this article have, to a large extent, become sensationalized by the media. This also may be a case of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." If editors have strong arguments in deletion discussions, the strength of those arguments will speak for themselves; there is no need to repeat those arguments ad nauseam. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notecardforfree I would agree...in the absolute reverse. I am passionate about law, ethics, debates, and this case will be cited and studied, and has had international attention - that much is clear. However the comments directed at drawing suspicion and doubt of motive almost from the get-go has been very unsettling in what I felt was such an obvious inclusion. "Making the person look insincere and defensive" - yes, that is how I feel. Thank you, because no matter what, every bit of feedback improves my experiences in the future. Karyn Swaney (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this is well designed for our modern news media, a single incident of this sort is not notable. Perhaps if she actually gets sentenced to something, and if this then devolves into a discussion of the limits of animal rights activism, then we could have an article. But "she gave water to pigs and is now charged with criminal mischief' (and that, despite the plethora of sources, is the essence of the article) is not article worthy. Even the word 'case' attached to the title is overdone because all we have is charge with no case so far. Perhaps a line or two in Animal rights activism but, at this point, even that's pushing it. --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request below, largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE but also WP:NOTNEWS.--regentspark (comment) 17:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to explain how the subject fails Wikipedia notability guidelines - that is how we decide whether a subject merits inclusion or otherwise. Your statement doesn't address this issue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the title, if there is a more appropriate one, please suggest so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No RP WP:NOTNEWS is about enduring notability - as I have stated in Keep statement. The case is discussed in RS for the past about three months or so, it isn't a one day mention in the press. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about (1) Summary-only descriptions of works (2) Lyrics databases (3) Excessive listings of statistics - such as opinion poll results (4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. Sorry but both don't seem to be relevant in this case. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YK, a few months of news reports doesn't make for enduring notability. The incident is likely to be forgotten a few months from now unless it progress to the point of an actual conviction. At best, this can be discussed as an issue in animal rights activism but even that is overkill. As I point out above, all we have is a person who gave water to a few pigs and was then charged with criminal mischief. Enduring notability will come only if something more than that happens. --regentspark (comment) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable" - wp:LASTING. About 3 months and the interest in the case is unabated. How can anyone predict the outcome? Why would only a conviction be notable? Why isn't an acquittal notable? See the international impact of the case about a score countries - wp:GEOSCOPE. ~~What you are indulging in~~ RP is your doing wp:OR by describing the incident and claiming it is trivial like the nominator called it a stunt, that isn't for us to judge. Independent and reliable sources are interested in the case across countries and continents that have found it important enough to write about it, that is sign for us that the subject is notable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RP May be sources covering the case feel it is no different from the trivial incident 60 years ago when a black seamstress refused to give up her seat to a white guy. One can't read other's minds. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YK would you mind not pinging me, I obviously have this page on my watch list. I hope you're not being serious above with your reference to Rosa Parks. Just in case you are, do note that every incident has the potential to be of lasting historical significance. But, it doesn't follow that we record every incident that occurs. Rather, we wait for that significance (aka notability) to emerge because, in the vast majority of cases, it simply won't emerge. In this case, I don't see any reliable sources claiming that this is of any importance. I do see that the incident is interesting and of titillating news value. Imo, that doesn't necessarily make it notable for wikipedia. Apparently for you - and the other keep voters - it does. That's a legitimate difference of opinion and I'm not sure why this needs to devolve into a "what you are indulging in" sort of argument. --regentspark (comment) 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RP I believe that your personal system of beliefs plays in to why you believe this will be significant. PLEASE believe me when I say that is not an insult, just meaning you may not be fully aware of the numbers that are dramatically increasing by the day of what is being called the "next social justice movement" (hence, the Rosa Parks reference). This case is definitely very significant to a large portion of the population, even if you do not agree. To effectively conclude this would only require some simple searches into the steadily growing numbers of this population (AR, Animal Rights, Vegan, etc.). I do not say this in an effort to support or rally, I say this as an evidence-based fact. This case WILL without a doubt be used as a hallmark for a very large movement that is currently occurring across the globe. It will be referenced and researched, and in my own research of the case I have a quote from both the driver and company who pressed charges against Anita Krajnc admitting it will be significant in their decision to prosecute others in the future. Jill Phipps has an entry here on Wikipedia, deservedly so, and she is referenced often in the readings I have been doing. While understandably - she died while partaking in activism - the story has remained significant and is found frequently in years of references, as will be the case of Anita Krajnc. It would sincerely be a shame to not have Wikipedia, who I have used for many years to reference these very subjects, have no notable reference as this case progresses. Sorry for my long entry, thank you.Karyn Swaney (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just restored the inappropriately deleted section begun by an IP and continued by "Swaney".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which was due to new user error and nothing more, I have done a strike out on the IP entry I made that was restored, as I am obviously aware the prior version are accessible and was not hiding anything, I certainly did not realize it was a major issue as I have been honest about who I am and my errors. I am even slightly confused as I am borderline being accused of some sort of fraud and/or dishonesty. I reiterate from below - this should be decided on policy without bias, so I am clearly not expecting anything less. It is starting to feel if I reply to comments then I "protest too much" and if I stay silent then comments like yours make it appear as if I may have been 'up to something' which is simply not true. Remarks like "strange" and "weird" and "protest too much" on this thread? Rather than examine and discuss their valid statements? Perhaps I am still misunderstanding, I thought the comments and the ensuing discussion were the whole point. I write many research articles so these discussions are not unfamiliar, I have rarely been treated as if I should not speak valid discussion material for "protesting too much" (assuming that was likely directed at me). I have given nothing but respect to all and have been thankful for the guidance. This is a tough crowd, but I certainly have learned a lot. Thanks again for your help. Karyn Swaney (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs or whether I am or am not aware of the social justice movement. Whether it will or will not have lasting significance is not the issue, what matters is that there are no references that state that it does. When reliable source state that this incident has lasting significance, of course we will have an article. Until then, we shouldn't. --regentspark (comment) 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, above first sentence should read "won't be significant" Karyn Swaney (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RP My statements refer to the fact that a rather large population already know it has a great deal of significance, and will (as said) will be cited by many in the future. Jeff Lavigne (the driver of the truck) states, “when Anita is found guilty it will set precedence, and the next time anyone even shows up with a water bottle they will be charged.” So the question will not simply go away. The results of this pivotal trial will define how future activism is handled, but they will not simply go away. Maybe I am continuing to misunderstand, and I did read the rules, but my persistent feeling was that for those who will seek info on a factual subject such as this Wikipedia would want to have a historically accurate entry. This case is already being heavily researched and cited, and is why I ended up here in the first place. Being one who has relied many times on Wikipedia for this kind of data I would be disappointed to see it deleted, as myself and many others are already citing it, researching it, and following this case. Just the fact that I can easily count more than 40 articles and videos from all over the world spanning a period of months clearly demonstrates the need for people to be able to look up this case on such a widely available source [Wikipedia]. I can post them all but doubt anyone wants me to supply such a list here. All I am saying is because you personally may not realize its significance there are many thousands - I'd even guess millions - of those who do feel (and know) it is very significant and undoubtedly will be cited for years to come. Again was not trying to be insulting. Thanks again. Karyn Swaney (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~though it may be WP:TOOSOON, but~~the coverage for a couple of months in various national media prompts it passes WP:GNG.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TooSoon is for films/ actors and the like. (1) Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. (2) Or an actor who is announced to star in a future film project. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:TOOSOON can be and regularly is applied to any budding phenomenon that has not yet bloomed fully enough in terms of notability to merit an article, although it someday may. It is a primciple that can be applied to political activists, as well as the enormous number of actors, authors and wanna-be documentary film directors who self promote on wikipedia. Or try to.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Keep - the vigils have been going on since July 2011 so are clearly not a "stunt." The Save Movement has done at least 3 vigils a week for more than 4 years. The case is set to go on trial in August of 2016 and is not yet resolved, and has already gone on for some time with steady growth in public and media attention. This case will not be forgotten quickly and will ultimately set a major precedent as it is the first of its kind. This precedent and the trial, regardless of ultimate result (conviction, found not guilty, etc) will be both cited and utilized for other potential cases in the future and the information and details are significant enough to support inclusion on Wikipedia. Many are already seeking further information on this case and will be for some time to come, so it should be available to research without bias on Wikipedia.100.0.139.169 (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 100.0.139.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sole edit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this IP also posted the same comment on the talk page for this AFD discussion under the name "KarynS," and that comment was also the user's only contribution. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was unable to post on this page as user name and had trouble. The fact that I am new to Wikipedia posting and made an error does not exclude my valid commentary100.0.139.169 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was able to get a user name using my real name, I'd ask all to understand not everyone is an expert right off.Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment This article is a blatant violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. As User:RegentsPark says, a redirect, merge and reduction to line or two in Animal rights activism might be appropriate, keeping it as a stand-alone article is a violation of WP:UNDUE. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note another policy arguing for deletion is WP:SENSATION.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RP/ E.M.Gregory: (1) RP - struck off what you find offensive, please accept my apologies. (Rusty). (2) wp:RS have used terms like "cause célèbre" and "celebrity", it seems you've not read the article, please do. Sadly EMG/ RP to me you too sound exactly like the new editor here who voted "Keep" - less to do with policy - more to do with perceived merits and your taste in the matter - WP:NOTSOAPBOX. (3) RP - I'm saying this because of the liberty our long interaction allows me to - as in other discrimination related incidents - trivialising the other/ or their issues has been a standard reaction, I'm surprised with the position you've chosen to take. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Note to User:Yogesh Khandke. You are only permitted one iVote your should ~~strike~~ one of your two votes (I am not counting the IP about which you were warned on your talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you think I've voted twice? Wasn't the IP allegation enough? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, you ran one of your comments into a previous editor's iVote, so that it looked like the iVote was yours. I have now separated your comment from his. Sorry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just AGF. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable per policy (specific policy phrases in quotes); the “reliable sources” are thorough and well-cited in article and “multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources” have reported on it. A quick review of the citations and web searches easily demonstrates this topic has “gained significant independent coverage or recognition.” This case has already spanned a period of several months while the attention has only continued to increase (not a “dwindling mere short-term interest”). This steadily increasing attention, including commentary from celebrities and articles being published in multiple countries, clearly shows that the outside “world has already ‘taken notice of it.'" It can be easily evidenced that “that this was not a, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity” as a rather brief web search demonstrates ample evidence that Anita Krajnc has been doing these vigils for 4 years and was not seeking prosecution. Additionally, the prosecuting party is certainly serious and not interested in “stunts.” Per the prosecuting party (representing the driver), and in reading the many articles available, the consensus is that this case will be historically significant to decide how to handle these issues in the future, i.e. set a legal precedent that will continue to be referenced over time. The ultimate ruling on this case will, without a shred of doubt, be used to determine the future actions of both a rapidly growing group of activists and those who are feeling impacted by said activists . This case is going to trial in August of 2016, so will continue to be active for some time (not “short-term” and certainly not “dwindling”). The complexity of this subject has sparked questions of our humanity’s response to visceral emotions and principles and is fascinating for nonbiased discussion and sociological exploration on many levels. In light of the facts I would assert the case will hold historical significance. Speaking for myself, I came here because I was researching this subject, so I am a prime example of people who will be seeking this well-sourced article. This article should not be deleted as I feel it so clearly meets stated guidelines and is an honest and noteworthy article that will bring interest for a long time to come. Sorry for the long entry, it was important to be inclusive of what feel very much like valid points. Thank you to all. Karyn Swaney (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Swaney, your proper move is to ~~strike~~ one of your 2 iVotes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory I don't believe I ever logged a vote as myself...I had trouble when I initially created a user name, so I wanted the entry to be under my now-straightened-out account. I admit it is possible I am wrong and voted before as myself, because I did have some issues with format, but I didn't think I did. I apologize - I am still learning and will figure out how to strike out so I follow policy. Thanks so much. Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not realize the text was restored when I typed that, so clearly I didn't vote as myself. I was able to get a better grasp of how things work and the policies, so thank you for the guidance, many have been very helpful. Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This AFD has gotten strange. Not only the suspect IP account from the Nom's hometown (see Nom's talk page), but the second IP account, immediately acquiring a user name and intense familiarity with this debate, which then blanks a large section of the AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory I am not from Canada where this case is taking place, so no idea who you are referring to there, as I am not that advanced to check these things. I have been doing a ton of research on this case for educational purposes, so I found this article and I was actually shocked to see it might be taken down, so I got an account, yes - but that is not "strange." I am sure most people were initially drawn to edit because of a subject that intrigued them or they felt they had input on. I am now very interested in doing other things as an editor, I just never really thought much about it before and was a little intimidated. Yes, I have many articles saved on this case - also not "strange." It is of sociological significance, and that is exactly what I am trying to say! Thanks. Karyn Swaney (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory Sorry to add - but suddenly wondering if I have misunderstood the term of Nom? I initially thought was referring to 'The Anita Krajnc Case' but in doing more reading on Wikipedia talk and codes, etc., it seems I may have misunderstood? Who is Nom? Thank you. Karyn Swaney (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, another infrequent editor, Lake Ontario Wind, first deleted [21] , then restored [22] part of a comment. As I said, this AFD has gotten weird.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory I haven't been around long enough to know what is strange or not, and clearly my mistakes did not help the matter, but none of which were anything other than errors. Disregarding new user stumbles, the only real issue was one user (deleted/restored) and a claim that someone on here may possibly live near Nom? I would assume even if lives near Nom does not discount their input. But I think the point of main importance is that this issue should be decided based on merit and policy, not geography or bias. I am sure you agree. The fact is that people ARE searching for this page, and that they will for the foreseeable future, even in law debates it is a topic of interest. The decision should be made based on policy, and a close scrutiny of the policies still makes me feel strongly the article should stay. Thanks again. Karyn Swaney (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per cites and so-far enduring notability. If the case goes away and loses its notability in a few months or a year, that may be the time for a deletion. So far the media coverage seems to be continuing (per page references). So a Keep and suggestion to revisit this later. Randy Kryn 6:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Jackson (MMA trainer)

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

Does not seem to be notable based on being inherited. Maybe I am wrong. Just my opinion. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Subject meets WP:GNG on his own, without the need for any inheritance issue. Sports Illustrated, Yahoo Sports, newspapers, trade magazines, and a book written about him - all properly referenced within the article. Please read WP:BEFORE. Scr★pIron^IV 22:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage of both him and his gym especially with regard to the claim of best MMA gym. If there were two articles, one for him and one for the gym, one would probably have to go but this is a properly merged article. When discussing AfD context is important.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Their contribution has been training just like notable trainers of Olympic athletes and professional sports teams often have articles. They illicit their own notability through WP:SIGCOV. This article clearly meets WP:GNG -- our primary means of determining notability. Not sure where WP:INHERENT is coming in here... Mkdw ^talk 05:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person also meets the first point of WP:ANYBIO in that they have received numerous prestigious awards. Mkdw ^talk 22:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ample coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Subject meets WP:GNG, reliable sources abound Jacona (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be closed as a WP:SNOW speedy keep. Mkdw ^talk 22:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Moore

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

Single event, per WP:BLP1E - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This desperately needs a rewrite. But Moore has apparently become notable for work on behalf of shark conservation, too: [23]. So, maybe it's not quite a BLP1E. It's still shark-related, but not for the reasons one might expect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, rewrite. An inherent problem is COI, since the Wikipedia article has been created by the author of a newly released book on Ms. Moore. The article's tone seems designed to sell books. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some copy edits for tone. It's a bit more presentable now, but I agree that the book tie-in seems a bit suspicious. The book itself got a little bit of coverage, too: [24] from the Orangeville Banner (a local newspaper), [25] from CTV News, and [26] from The Hamilton Spectator. I'm curious to see if other people this is enough for significant coverage when you also include the sources about the shark attack itself, the conservation, and the motivational speaking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good sleuthing, but IMO this still falls under WP:BLP1E, as her post attack activities are not notable yet. If at some point that happens the article can easily be recreated ... WP:CRYSTAL - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless I am doing something wrong, only 5 libraries in the world has this book? I'm leaning towards Delete because I just see nothing inherently notable about being bitten and working to save sharks. Maybe there are better sources or I am doing something off... DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly per WP:BLP1E -- samtar ^whisper 10:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single event; post-shark authorship of relatively obscure book is non-notable. Neutrality^talk 20:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moore is not the author of the book, the book is about her, thus it actually enhances notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really understand the convoluted rules that govern deletions, however, aren't we trying to build a resource for readers? Have a look at the stats that show readers have been looking for unbiased information about this for some time. I also want to thank the creator of this article for trying to enter our hostile environment. I hope they are not discouraged. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Comment The guidelines aren't especially convoluted. As has been noted above, usually people are not considered notable for having been involved in a single incident. Viewer statistics are changeable, and aren't a metric for considering long term notability. Not to sound cynical, but the article's creator is a strong example of WP:COI, having written this to coincide with the publication of his book. That there are concerns about the article would be expected. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Corvera

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

Undersecretary of a governkment department is not notability. The reffs seem primarily notices, most of them from organizations affiliated with him. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually, being undersecretary of a Philippine government department IS notability as defined by WP:NPOL. I think you're laboring under a misunderstanding. In the Philippines, unlike other countries, an "undersecretary" is a junior government minister, an "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" per WP:NPOL. Also, while the article's sources are deficient, a few minutes WP:GOOGLETESTing threw up many Philippine news articles that at least mention the man as the main protagonist.Fiachra10003 (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if the undersecretary reports to the secretary,, it's the secretary is a government minister. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair argument and I'm not familiar with the nuances of the Philippine executive but, to use your reasoning, in the UK political system the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is the "undersecretary" to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but each are significant public officials in their own right. John Major for instance, went from Chief Secretary to the Treasury to Prime Minister in under 18 months. The same applies in other departments of government. Broadly speaking, in the European system, there are two tiers of ministers, ones with cabinet seats and ones without. Those not in the cabinet are traditionally called "parliamentary secretaries", "parliamentary undersecretaries", "ministers of state" or some similar term. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure basically as I'm not at all familiar with the Philippines system so I'll wait until I comment (if I even actually comment) and hopefully other familiar users will come and examine. I will say though that I agree, from a United States POV, undersecretary seems non-notable for an independently notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a government official rather than a politician, the sources cited are not impressive in the light of WP:GNG. Sandstein 19:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he is indeed a government official. His boss is appointed by the president and not elected. As such, he barely has any coverage, and even the few results are press releases and the like. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any redirect would be a separate editorial decision. Sandstein 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Parker (chiropractor)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:BIO, references are all from online chiropractic sources. Delta13C (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as founder of Parker University. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's a misunderstanding of WP:PROF. It applies to only major universities and colleges. It certainly does not apply to proprietary schools of pseudo-medicine. DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So would you call private colleges "proprietary" colleges? And what does Chiropractic being "pseudo-medicine" have to do with anything? Pardon, your POV is showing... Carrite (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PROF, "Heads of institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 6." Even if this criterion were not in WP:PROF, I don't see anything in WP:BIO that would permit this article to be notable. Parker University is not a major university either. I cannot find too many reliable and in depth sources for the organization. At least, Jim Parker is delete, and Parker University is a weak keep. Delta13C (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: you've changed your mind after six years I see. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found some coverage in non-chiropractic sources. Discussed in an issue of Texas Monthly.[27] Mentioned in an academic source from two sociology professors at U of Delaware.[28] Mention by Ann Landers.[29] Other mentions in sources critical of chiropractic, but I'm unsure of their reliability.[30][31] Mentions in governmental report, but difficult to assess full context.[32] - Location (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking anything other than in-universe sources form the walled garden of mutually self-promoting chiropractic sites. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there was a previous deletion discussion which resulted in "Keep". - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Parker University. He is not notable, but the school seems to meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. He is not mentioned there, so a little information about him should be added, not a simple redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westhollow

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

Non-notable unofficial neighbourhood. The website linked in the article actually states that they made the name up to promote the area and give it a "brand identity". I can find no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to prove WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a brand name for a geographical location. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. sst✈^(discuss) 15:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westhollow is fictitious. It is a moniker created by a lone real estate agent to "brand" an area to a vision he wants. This real estate agent claims the moniker encompasses numerous established neighborhoods, none of which he consulted to see if they even wanted to be a part of it.2602:306:806C:8BC0:A1DC:7B02:654B:956D (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC) http://edictrealty.com/westhollow-northwest-dallas-up-and-coming-neighborhood/[reply]

Delete The subject is not even verified, much less notable. And the article is a hopelessly promotional piece about a concept invented by a local real estate agent. --MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-criticism

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

Seems non-notable and mostly WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like one person's personal concept. Could be redirected to his article.Borock (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, self-promotional postgrad essay, with the author's name helpfully plastered all over it, and an external link to his blog in Persian. WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOR. Nothing here worth merging to self-criticism which, as the article itself points out, is the real meaning in English of the word autocriticism. Norvoid (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Norvoid sums it up perfectly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 FC Barcelona B season

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

Not notable season article as team is not playing in any WP:FPL (fully professional league). Qed237 (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS - not a club in a top professional league. Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NSEASONS and GNG, youth team season not required. 18:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the team doesn't play in a fully pro league Spiderone 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 20:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Edinburgh)

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

United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Scotland) exists, and this sub-article adds no significant value to this. Suggest it be merged into United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Scotland). LukeSurl^{t c} 17:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I realise there is precedent for this. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 FC Barcelona Juvenil A season

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

Not notable as it is not a senior team and fails WP:GNG Qed237 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given the league is a junior league and a non-fully professional, unclear how this could pass NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NSEASONS and GNG, youth team season not required. Giant Snowman 18:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a professional league, just a youth team Spiderone 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive Conn Smythe

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

Nominating following a brief discussion at the article's talk page. This is a list of imaginary winners of an award for the period of time before it existed. While compiled by SIHR, this list is ultimately little more than a speculative fantasy team. One that has failed to achieve sufficient independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Reso lute 16:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deadman137 (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not like we have articles for the original Rotisserie League teams, however much they've received casual mentions in other media. Ravenswing 19:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of independent coverage from reliable sources. Many things could have happened that didn't, so the bar for including speculation in Wikipedia is very high. I have not found any evidence that this article is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. isaacl (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhav Ratnakar

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

No indication of notability per WP:NAUTHOR. Already speedied twice. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested without explanation by anonymous editor, 7 minutes after I prodded. Norvoid (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 and salt if necessary. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Sarah-Jane (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Clearly non-notable. No RS found. ƬheStrike Σagle 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a non-notable book by the same author:

Delete but not WP:A7 – yes this fails notability (for a person born in 2000, should have ample Internet coverage if it is actually notable) but the article does have a claim of significance. sst✈^(discuss) 15:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Murray (Irish Politician)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability, never been elected to public office. Snappy (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, fails notability. Dismas|^(talk) 15:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find independent accounts of Murray of any substance.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has only one source and so fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL#2, and the subject has not been elected to an office, so it also fails WP:NPOL#1. KSFT ^C 01:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Cut-and-dried case of an unelected candidate, thereby failing the WP:POLITICIAN high bar. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Definitely not notable. Graham (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2016 Hawthorn Football Club season#2016 player squad. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teia Miles

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

Does not meet notability criteria User:Melb vict (talk) 0:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to 2016 Hawthorn Football Club season#2016 player squad. Plausible search term, undelete if he makes his debut. The-Pope (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with The-Pope's reasoning above. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Makes it easier to undo things (i.e., doesn't require an admin) when he does make his debut. Jenks24 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The-Pope. Flickerd (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2016 Port Adelaide Football Club season. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Austin

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

Does not meet notability criteria User:Melb vict (talk) 0:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to 2016 Port Adelaide Football Club season. Plausible search term, undelete if he makes his debut. The-Pope (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with The-Pope's reasoning. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Makes it easier to undo things (i.e., doesn't require an admin) when he does make his debut. Jenks24 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The-Pope. Flickerd (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2016 Port Adelaide Football Club season. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Frampton

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

Does not meet notability criteria User:Melb vict (talk) 0:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to 2016 Port Adelaide Football Club season. Plausible search term, undelete if he makes his debut. The-Pope (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Makes it easier to undo things (i.e., doesn't require an admin) when he does make his debut. Jenks24 (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The-Pope. Flickerd (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2016 Port Adelaide Football Club season. Okay, attempted to make the corrections as per the below discussion. Hope I didn't screw it up too badly. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Palmer (footballer)

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

Does not meet notability criteria User:Melb vict (talk) 0:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to 2016 Port Adelaide Football Club season. Plausible search term, undelete if he makes his debut. The-Pope (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with The Pope's reasoning. On a different point, the article Jesse Palmer is about an American footballer. So wouldn't (Australian footballer) be a more accurate disambiguation? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with the dab needing to be Australian footballer, and not just footballer. Flickerd (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Makes it easier to undo things (i.e., doesn't require an admin) when he does make his debut. Athomeinkobe is also correct that it should be renamed to (Australian footballer). Jenks24 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The-Pope. Flickerd (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jesse Palmer as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, since that is the primary topic. Then, change the hatnote on the Jesse Palmer article to {{For|the Australian footballer|2016 Port Adelaide Football Club season}}. sst✈^(discuss) 15:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If implementing my suggestion, remember to point all links to Jesse Palmer (footballer) to 2016 Port Adelaide Football Club season! sst✈^(discuss) 15:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer to move the redirect so the history is preserved. After the move, the redirect can then be retargeted to the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, move this page to Jesse Palmer (Australian footballer) and redirect this to the 2016 Port Adelaide Football Club season article, then redirect Jesse Palmer (footballer) to Jesse Palmer. sst✈^(discuss) 07:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that seems like the correct outcome to me. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Keays

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

Does not meet notability criteria User:Melb vict (talk) 0:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won a major award at junior level, has sufficient reliable sources to meet GNG. WP:NAFL is just a guideline. The-Pope (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As The-Pope says, he did have a fairly notable junior career. I also appreciate that the article creator has done a thorough job (often not the case for articles on draftees) and the sources in the article make a reasonable case that he might pass the general notability guideline. Worst case, just redirect to List of Brisbane Lions players#Currently listed players yet to play a senior game for Brisbane and "un-redirect" when he makes his debut. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The-Pope and meets GNG. Flickerd (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2016 Hawthorn Football Club season#2016 player squad. joe decker ^talk 02:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Lovell

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

Does not meet notability criteria User:Melb vict (talk) 0:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Hawthorn Football Club season#2016 player squad. Plausible search term, undelete if he makes his debut. The-Pope (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Silent Billy (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The-Pope. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Why should we have index of everyone living on earth? Just because they are members of some local team. --Shekhar 07:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as outlined by The-Pope. The delete votes either baseless assertions ("non-notable") or show a complete misunderstanding of the subject ("some local team"). He has been drafted into the AFL and once he plays one game (very likely for for a pick that high), will pass the subject-specific notability guideline. Having a redirect in the meantime is an obviously sensible thing to do, especially when you could already make a decent case for passing the GNG with full-length articles in Fox Sports, The Mercury, the ABC, The Mercury, the ABC – all quality independent sources. Jenks24 (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The-Pope and Jenks24's arguments. Flickerd (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm really tempted to not close this, so I can !vote Merge with List of articles with absurdly long titles, but duty calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, and SAG Award for a single performance in film

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

This is a meta-list article synthesizing other lists, but there's no indication that these lists (film awards for acting) should be combined at all. Unlike, say, EGOT, this meta-list has been given no basis off wikipedia. In fact, the reason it wasn't deleted last time (besides no consensus) was that a source gave it such a basis — but it didn't. This article is asserting that the five most prestigious acting awards are the Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and Critics' Choice Awards. The source does not support this assertion. It does mentions seven awards— Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, Guild Awards, the National Board of Review award, Independent Spirit and assorted "Critics Awards". Guild Awards when applied to acting obviously means the SAG, and you can reasonably take out independent spirit by clarifying it's non-independent film. But conveniently ignoring the NBR is unjustified, in fact the source gives far more weight to the NBR than it does to the Critics Choice.

It mentioned the latter as one of several critics' awards— "The key groups in the US include the National Society of Film Critics, made up of 55 writers across the country, the LA Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle. The London Film Critics' Circle, comprising more than 80 members, issues awards recognizing British and international film talent. In recent years, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has aspired to usurp the status of the Golden Globes, with a televised ceremony of the unashamedly populist Critics' Choice Awards." If you interpret this text literally then the key groups in the US include NSFC, LAFC, and NYFCC. Then it mentions London as a key Critics' group out of the US. But it reserves a different clause for the Critics' Choice—separating it from other critics awards by noting its "unashamed populism" (critics awards are noted for not being populist and for being impartial to commercialism unlike academy-style awards) and saying it wants to usurp the golden globes. A more lenient interpretation is that all the groups are key Critics' groups— but therefore by the source there's no reason to just include the Critics' Choice and not all the groups it mentioned.

Now I didn't want to delete this article, so I changed it to conform to the source it used— I included the NBR and all the Critics' Awards it mentioned, and noted that those six awards were the more prestigious awards for contemporary English non-independent cinema, so as to not generalize unfairly. This change (and here's the most recent version of the page in the same vein by @Heisenberg0893:) was admittedly awkward but at least it was based on substance.

My edits got reverted. The reasons for reverting my edit was basically that, if I may quote comments on the talk page, it "overcomplicated [the page] and made [the page] too exclusive" and that "NBR isn't a significant award". That's all good and well, but we can't have a preconceived list of performances in our minds, pick criteria around our mind-list, and then say lists that happen to omit performances on our mind-list are "too exclusive". I understand the article's purpose- to note the most acclaimed performances in contemporary cinema with objective criteria, but the criteria isn't objective if it's selected subjectively. This feels like a cruft list, not to mention SYNTH. Time to ping those involved in the original deletion discussion. @Feedback: @Jaxsonjo: @SummerPhD: @Postdlf: @Edison:. I'll put in a request for comment on this on related wikiprojects as @Lapadite77: recommended. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator demonstrates, the grouping (and in particular, the selection of the Critics' Choice award over all other critics' awards) is subjective and arbitrary. Here's a source that lists the "three most prestigious critics groups" in this context and doesn't mention the Critics' Choice award at all.
I did in fact find some sources that mention specific actors/actresses as having won these five specific awards – quite possibly inspired by the existence of this article; namely this source and this source. But I'm not very convinced by these sources, and any treatment of these actors as a group is minimal. (By contrast, this source clearly treats actors who have won an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for the same performance as a group.)
List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film, the twin of this article, should also be deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "cousin" of this page about television List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television. Anyway I also thought that New York Film Critics Circle and LA and National Society were more prestigious critics' awards, as your source says. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get what this article is trying to do, but it would better just to have an article "list of film performances considered the best", which unlike this article would apply to each mention contemporaneously without being biased by selecting contemporary film awards.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's another thing I'm concerned about, I don't want wikipedia to create "facts on the ground". None of your sources mentioning those awards grouped together precede the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. The EGOT is a notable concept. I don't understand the origin of this grouping of awards. Chunky Rice (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. This list is original research, and doesn't meet WP:NOTESAL. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. There is no general linkage of these 'off-wiki', which makes this OR and a bit pointless. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - super duper arbitrary 166.137.96.95 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if this gets deleted (as Sideways pointed out) then so should List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film and possibly this List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television (though the latter might need a new thread, but it's similarly arbitrary). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - EGOT is only combo of notable awards thus far —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actors and directors get nominated in multiple award shows all the time, it's nothing new or worth noting. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what all of you say, especially Blaze The Movie Fan post. Matt294069 is coming 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus was keep, rather than merge. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn

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

Subject was related to notable people, but notability is not inherited. Subject took no notable actions of their own, they died well before their first birthday. Edward321 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and Redirect~~ - It is probably best to delete it and make a redirect to Hosseini infancy conference article. The notability is about the mourning anyway. Despite the fair amount of work put in this, and the genuine cult this boy enjoys, there would not be much left to merge to that other article. Since that other article is so much more reasonable, WP:TNT wins over WP:PRESERVE. Ceosad (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC) - As I have stated below, I changed my vote to Merge. Ceosad (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ali al-Asghar was important and youngest person who killed in the battle of Karbala and there are several notable sources about him. Therefore, the subject is notable but text of article must rewrite. Please see these books: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Saff V. (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)modified Saff V. (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us look at these books and what they say about him:

1 Shi'ite Heritage: Essays on Classical and Modern Traditions, edited by L. Clarke This has one mention in passing of the subject on page 379.
Redemptive Suffering in Islam: A Study of the Devotional Aspects of Ashura, by Mahmoud M. Ayoub Two of the eight pages found by the search are about the death of this child. (The other six are about other people.)
The History of al-Tabari Vol. 19, translated by I K A Howard. Page 75 mentions the death of an un-named baby son of Husayn ibn Ali. Page 180 lists three sons of Husayn ibn Ali who were present at the battle: two of these were called "Ali" and one was called "Abdullah". The first son called Ali was killed in the battle; his mother was Layla bint Abi Murrah. The second Ali was not killed because he was judged too young to kill; his mother is not listed on page 180. The treatment of this second Ali after his capture is described on pages 169-175. Abdullah was killed in the battle, his mother was Layla bint Abi Murrah.
Perspectives on Islamic Faith and History: A Collection of Analytical Essays, by Bashir A. Datoo This has 3 references in passing to the child.
For the Love of Husayn (AS), edited by Muhammad-Reza Fakhr-Rohani. This is a compilation of poems about Husayn ibn Ali and his companions. It is well known that poems on this subject are only loosely based upon the known history of the event. For citations see Battle of Karbala#History distortion. The URL itself is to page 45, which is a list of people who appear in the poems. Page 151 is interesting, because it says that the baby was also known as "Abd Allah". [6] is also a URL to a search for pages in the same book.
[The Women of Karbala: Ritual Performance and Symbolic Discourses in Modern Shi'i Islam, by Kamran Scot Aghaie]. This has 15 references in passing to the child as one of the victims.
5, For the Love of Husayn (AS), edited by Muhammad-Reza Fakhr-Rohani This is the same book as [4].

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hosseini infancy conference to Ali al-Asghar in popular culture We do not even know this child's name for sure. You might infer from Tabari's history that it was Abdullah; but maybe it was Ali, if Husayn had three sons called Ali. The child, whatever his name was, was killed because his father carried him into battle. How the child died is part of the biography of his notable father Husayn ibn Ali; the child is also part of the list of casualties. Being an unwitting victim of the battle does not make him notable. The one really notable thing about this child is the festival the Iranian government started in 2003 - but there is already a separate article on this: the Hosseini infancy conference.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the statement made by Seyyed at 07:38, 27 November 2015 lower in the page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or or Merge with Hosseini infancy conference to Ali al-Asghar in popular culture There are several reliable sources which confirm the notability of the issue such as Visualizing Belief and Piety in Iranian Shiism, The Martyrs Of Karbala: Shi'i Symbols and Rituals in Modern Iran and Shi'ite Islam--Seyyed(t-c) 08:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ceosad and Toddy1: As I know, Ali al-Asghar is more notable than Hosseini infancy conference> I think there is not any reliable book which has mentioned this conference. Thus, if something should be moved or merged, then it is "Hosseini infancy conference".--Seyyed(t-c) 09:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hosseini infancy conference is a particularly badly named article considering that it can be very easily expanded to include other kinds of events that are held for commemorating Ali al-Asghar's death. Those reliable sources you provided prove that the commemorations are notable events. After reading them I am still not convinced that keeping Ali al-Asghar as a separate article from his commemoration is wise. If I were to expand and rewrite Hosseini infancy conference, I would rename it to something like Commemoration of Ali al-Asghar. Ali al-Ashgar's life as the main focus of the article just doesn't feel plausible without causing issues with the WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ceosad (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Demonstrably several sources to establish notability. Notability in this case is related to cultural practices around his legacy, and is not merely 'inherited' from his more famous relatives. The cultural practices appear to be sufficiently individuated so as to not merge this article into some larger topic.Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finnusertop, aren't the cultural practices around his legacy the Hosseini infancy conference? Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete (optional merge to Hosseini infancy conference) per Edward321. Poor comprehension on my part. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (This is getting too complicated for me; I have retracted any votes I have cast and opinions I have stated. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Comment @Ceosad, Edward321, and Toddy1: How do you suggest to merge or move an article with about 355000 results in google [33] to article which has only "407" results[34]!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sa.vakilian|c, Ghits are not reliable sources. Also, I only find 4120 Ghits for this article's subject.[35] Edward321 (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notable topic is not the baby whose name is uncertain. The possibly-notable topic is the combination of folk-lore, the works of fiction, songs, festival, etc. This is why a merge would be a good idea. Perhaps the merged article should be called the Death of Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn in popular culture.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward321 and Toddy1: I agree that the issue does not have historical notability, but has folklore one. In addition, it is not well known by its current name (i.e. "Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn"). Thus, I suggest to merge both of them in Ali al-Asghar in popular culture.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the statement made by Seyyed at 07:38, 27 November 2015 lower in the page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward321, Ceosad, Saff V., and Finnusertop: Regarding the above discussion, do you agree to Merge Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn with Hosseini infancy conference to Ali al-Asghar in popular culture?--Seyyed(t-c) 11:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa.vakilian: Yes, Merge would be fine, considering that this article has been somewhat rewritten by Toddy1. I am still a bit unsure about that name. Popular culture doesn't seem to be the most fitting name, but merging itself is completely fine. Ceosad (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa.vakilian: No Saff V. (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteA horrendous article with no notability or any good source to prop it up. The only guys voting for keep are the two Shi'ite POV guys who vote Keep on every Shi'ite related AFD. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeatlastChitchat: Unfortunately you have judged without reading the former discussions. As you can see above, Toddy and me have suggested to merge the article and the other Shia editor disagrees with me!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 16:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is another case of disagreement between me and the other Shia editor.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as for anyone with similar evidence as being a widely commemorated martyr or equivalent in a major religion. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I haven't looked too closely at everything but this seems historic enough to be notable and acceptable and I also surely imagine there are better sources elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a widely venerated figure in Islam. That's enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a reliable source (had to search for Ali Asghar rather than Ali al-Asghar) and rewrote some bits an pieces to give it some notability. The article is still far from perfect and I've tagged those issues, but I hope others can help improve the article. PS: to me, the title of the Hosseini infancy conference article sounds weird, as if the UN is having a meeting about toddlers; isn't there a better title? - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Edward321, Ceosad, Toddy1, Finnusertop, and FreeatlastChitchat: to reconsider their !votes. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HyperGaruda! I would still like to see some kind of merge out here. Keeping this article for now is fine to me. Naming these articles is kind of painful... I mentioned Commemoration of Ali al-Asghar (or Commemoration of Ali Asghar) above as a possible name, and since there is almost certainly no chance for a consensus that supports merging, I think Hosseini infancy conference could be renamed into that at least for now. I would highly prefer a single article though. Ceosad (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is absolutely notable. He was one of the main figures regarded in different Maqatil. Sources such as this support the notability. Mhhossein (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I considered salting the title since this is the fourth time it has been deleted. But it's possible the person could become more notable later, so I am not salting it at this time. However, if it gets created again without any additional evidence of notability it should probably be salted. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Banzon

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

Unreferenced autobio of child actor with no indication of notability per WP:NACTOR. I can't find anything about him online in WP:RS, and the article's already been speedied once and BLP prodded once. Norvoid (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete, A7 applies. Not notable. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find sources to back up the article content. Waronspam (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and Fauzan. Sixth o f March 03:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dona Amelia

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

Where to begin...this article's a mess. It looks like a thinly veiled attempt at advertising, and given the amount of external and social media links it could be argued that this is random collection of links to the page with no apparent notability. At a minimum it would need a rewrite, at worst, just plain old deleted. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article and not the only one created by this editor. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 13:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No use of keeping such promotional biographies. Wiki is not IMDB or a fashion magazine. No useful content with no independent sources in the article. For Advertisement creator has put External Links directed towards person's social networking pages.--Shekhar 13:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing better and the article would certainly need improvement to be accepted. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NDTV 25 Greatest Global Living Indians

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

A trophy-looting ceremony held by a media house with no notable coverage outside their own publications. Dubious notability. Please don't show Google hit count as your rationale for keep as many of those are published by NDTV or are just news aggregators and mirrors. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: or merge to main article NDTV , surely lacks notability Shrikanthv (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Yann (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gomolo

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

Not enough third party/independent sources and the lines "Gomolo is a website with one of the largest database of Indian movies. " with unreliable sources look promotional. The Avengers 08:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not able to find sufficient coverage, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong places...Vanamonde93 (talk)
Delete as above. Yann (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, it was created for promotional purpose.Suman420 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Coast (Band)

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

As far as I can tell, this band is non-notable. I bring it here because a csd tag was removed. —teb728 t c 08:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC and the general notability guideline. Once they start to release records/gain national exposure, they might have a chance, but for now it's simply too soon for this band to have an article. — sparklism ^hey! 13:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned above, nothing to suggest even general notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney_Derby_(AFL)

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

This page was deleted in January 2014 as an example of WP:TOOSOON, with no independent citations that verify that this is a notable rivalary. Over 3 months ago I made a request asking for comment about why the article was recreated, and had no responses. The article still has no citations that display any notability, it has no enduring historical significance, no widespread national or international impact, has no in-depth coverage beyond a typical AFL game and nothing exists that changes the admin decision to delete it. This article should be G4 speedy deleted, and salted to prevent recreation, as this article is a non-encyclopaedic, synthetic marketing gimmick. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "I want Sydney Derby to only mean an equally insignificant soccer game, and will continue to scream in that supermarket aisle until it happens" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.209.71 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rivalry. The lack of significant coverage indicates a lack of notability. But the declining attendence figures say it best. --Bejnar (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing's changed since the last AfD. Utter lack of significant coverage for the derby as a phenomenon unto itself. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar.com

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

Unfortunately because of that first AfD, it seems we have to go through AfD again so here are....My searches simply found nothing better and the current article is simply not convincing enough of better notability and improvement. FWIW, my original PROD message was "Perhaps not speedy material per se, but my searches simply found nothing better and the current article is not convincing of solid notability.". Notifying past taggers and also otherwise tag users TheRedPenOfDoom, Maproom and Northamerica1000. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are not turning up evidence that this is more than a Marketing/SEO firm going about its business. No encyclopaedic notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article about notability. I would not have accepted as AFC, and see no reason to keep it, and I speak as an official member of the non-deletionist movement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for Tamar and the founder reveals no independent, reliable sources. Two articles cited as being in The Times are behind a paywall so I can't access them. --Sbwoodside (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Nominator did not advance a rationale and no current !votes advocate deletion -- Speedy keep criteria 1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaban Demiraj

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

The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:A3. Literally nothing but the subject's bolded name. Okay, maybe not completely nothing (Appears I spoke way too soon). Regardless, content is still way too insufficient, per WP:A7. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll retract my statement earlier. I think the Deletionist within me got way too ahead of myself. Didn't occur to me to look at the Albanian site. I'll do a better job next time. Sorry, all! GabeIglesia (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we shouldn't make a judgment here based on the length of this page. Other language pages appear to have a lot more content on this subject (although I can't read it so I have no idea what is being said) https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaban_Demiraj. On the face of it, there appears to be something to be discussed about the notability of the subject as per WP:NACADEMIC, although finding English-language sources could be a challenge. JMWt (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to pass WP:PROF criteria C3 and C6 as head of a national academy (even based only on the minimal version of the article after the "spoke too soon" comment above; certainly it is very far from an A7 speedy deletion) and I found several Albanian-language obituaries in what look like reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under SK#1, nom fails to advance a deletion rationale. I have added a {{cite book}} to Robert Elsie's Historical Dictionary of Albania where subject gets a whole page, and subject's notability under the professor test is hard to question. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs translation from the Albanian. Wrote some important works on Albanian language also.Resnjari (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eli everett

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

The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WP:A7. No sources, Wikilinks, or notability. It also appears that it was previously deleted a couple of days ago. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unsourced WP:SPA biography of an actor whose work to date looks miles short of WP:NACTOR. Rightly tagged as CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baradwaj Rangan

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

A film critic of The Hindu newspaper but not qualified for standalone article. Yes he does write movie reviews; so does 500 other critics in India. The Avengers 04:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - He's not just a critic, he's also a national award winner.^[1], which alone should be enough for notability. Coderzombie (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - He is a recipient of the National Film Award for Best Film Critic, which alone makes him notable. —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need some third party reliable sources other than BITSAA and The Hindu, where he is employed. Indian Govt. website will mention his name if he got National award. --The Avengers 02:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. The official announcement. Coderzombie (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Avengers: The same sources lie before you as well. A badly-written article always doesn't equate to an AFD. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While my comment is neither about keeping nor deleting his article, it can be expanding using the existing sources, which establish his notability. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is all about the notability the subject, not the article. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coderzombie and Vensatry. The award is sourced in the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award is quite sufficient; then there is his position as deputy editor of what I believe is a national newspaper in India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article is not well written but that does not mean it should be deleted. There are enough sources to keep this article on Wikipedia. There are lots of wikipedian who can make this article better. Suman420 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Lea'alafa

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has played for Solomon Islands National Team in Olympic Football qualifier and also per this and this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, has to play at the olympic games, qualifier does not suffice. Article also fails WP:GNG, not enough mention of the subject. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question This proposed deletion raises a question in my mind. If you are a member of the Solomon Islands national football team, I woud suggest you are significant in the Soloman's. Given that the Solomon's only have a population of 600,000 there are unlikely to be many who would be considered significant on an international basis, therefore, does this mean that we through our policy are actively discriminating against small (low population) countries and should this issue be looked at further? Even the project page for the Solomon Islands only list 4 participants and they aren't linked to this AfD NealeFamily (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I don't understand how this is discriminatory. In my opinion there hasn't been enough coverage in the media to pass WP:GNG and he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasnt played for the senior national team or in a full pro league therefore i have nominated it for deletion. This article is being judged with the same criteria as any other article would be. Simione001 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't the Auckland team a professional team? NealeFamily (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, semi-pro. Simione001 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability criteria, also may be to soon judging by comments in local press. NealeFamily (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2015 (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. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tier 1 matches are between senior national teams. Since FIFA restricts the Men's Olympic Tournament to a U-23 squad, the qualifiers are not considered Tier 1 matches. WP:NFOOTY specifically includes an exception for the Olympic tournament itself, but not for qualifiers. Fails NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectPlazza

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

Article created by new user, marred with errors, no lead, written like an advertisement, and borders on not noteworthy to have its own Wikipedia article. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, the page can be marked for speedy deletion, I don't think AFD is necessary for it. The creator has also removed AFD template.Kavdiamanju (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per nom. Clearly non-neutral and non-notable. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Stockade Football Club (Stockade FC)

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability guidelines. Not a fully professional team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is recent precedent and current consensus that 4th-tier clubs in the United States are notable due to being eligible to compete in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. I personally do not agree with it, but that is the current consensus. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Rapids FC, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real San Jose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Francisco Stompers FC, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ann Arbor, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spartans Futbol Club.) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4th tier Clubs in US football are notable and further are eligible to playing in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, recent consensus shows clubs playing at this level are considered notable. Needs renaming though. Giant Snowman 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information provided above seems to provide recent proof of a consensus on this particular topic. BobbyAFC (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dePRODed it because I thought it needed more discussion and possibly improvement. Now !voting keep given that it appears to be covered by consensus. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a load of fecal matter. This club is not yet notable. Just because other teams at this level may be notable is no reason that this club is. It's like saying that because two musicians are on the same label that they're both notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think these semi-pro teams - specifically NPSL clubs - are an important part of the American soccer landscape. Though the article name should definitely be changed. American Money (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not about importance but notability. See WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - current consensus is that teams at this level are notable. Fenix down (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Show me that this team is notable not that other teams may be notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well aside from the fact that consensus is that teams in that league are inherently notable, two seconds on google shows:

this
this
and this for coverage of the start of the club which is more than adequate for content. Fenix down (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL coverage. Fine. But again, just because other teams at this level are notable does not mean that all teams at this level are notable. You've all drunk the kool aide and have lost the capacity to think independently and critically. WP:GNG must be met not some esoteric concept that they should be notable so we will say that they are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have another look at WP:LOCAL as that is an essay on places, not organisations. It does however contain a quote from the guideline WP:N that states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources provided above are reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage of a club that plays in a league, the participants in which are eligible for national competition. you initial deletion rationale is fatally flawed, there is no guideline, nor any wider consensus that full professionalism is a benchmark for club notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed it was anything but an essay but it's the spirit of the essay that applies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Ramachandra

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

Not a notable person, clearly written by the person himself, or on behalf of, as an advertisement Midas02 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing better and the current article is not convincing enough to suggest keeping at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - He is an upcoming author and also a entrepreneur, perhaps article need to be fine tuned. His works are fairly well known in Bangalore, capital of the indian state of Karnataka. Some links here Book ISBN-13-9788128025648 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayakishor (talk • contribs) 06:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mention of subject in reliable sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Midas02 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by the nominator. utcursch | talk 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sterner's Studio

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

Does not appear to be a notable building. A search for sources comes up empty. Neither the glassworker who operates the studio nor the architect have articles here (though the architect has an article at the French Wikipedia), so there's nowhere to redirect to. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn based on the sources given below. Thanks for the sources, guys. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, then trout nominator with a really big slimy trout: This article, on what looks like a very interesting and quite possibly significant piece of Art Nouveau architecture, was nominated for deletion four minutes after it was posted. That is just not acceptable. Let the author do his/her work first. Put it on your watchlist and get back to it a week later. Or how about trying to be helpful to a new user by suggesting what s/he needs to do to improve the article? --Hegvald (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hegvald: That's very odd. I did a search for the building's name and there weren't any sources. How could this have happened? The sources Oakshade gave didn't appear in the search either. Anyway, once both users have replied here I'm going to withdraw the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You can withdraw at any point. Please be more careful in the future and don't shoot from the hip at new articles (unless it is some clearly defamatory BLP or something). --Hegvald (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It happened because "Sterner's Studio" is just a rough translation of the native French title so as most or all the sources are in French it's hardly, if at all, going to show up in searches. --Oakshade (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An occupier or an architect of a building in Belgium not having in English is not proper rationale of a building being not notable. Doing an English title search of a topic with a different native language title is not the best way to perform WP:BEFORE either. The Brussels Times calls the building "striking." [36] The Ministere de la Region de Bruxelles-Capitale has an extensive report on the building.[37] Nominating an article within four minutes of article-creation isn't helpful to anyone. --Oakshade (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinthe Bouchard

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

WP:BLP of a writer and animal trainer, making no especially strong claim of notability for either endeavour. As written, this literally just asserts that she exists, and cites mostly primary sources for the fact — the closest thing here to a reliable source is a blurb which is not nearly substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG if it's the article's only independent source. As always, a person does not gain an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that she exists — it takes reliable source coverage to get an article, but not nearly enough of that has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She shows up in several news sources and is on a TV show. She should pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I forgot to add that I put in more sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk)

Yep, that works. Thanks for that, consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otto K. Zwingman

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

Private who won a single second-level decoration plus a very minor decoration (not even third-level). Nowhere near meeting WP:SOLDIER. One of countless thousands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Honorable, just not notable. DreamGuy (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsira Suknidze

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

fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 15:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't even argue for notability. DreamGuy (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then she went back to her obscure life. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:BLP1E. sst✈^(discuss) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bookselves

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

Only one source The Daily California provides any non-trivial RS coverage of us. At this point, just another fledgling business with no real notability yet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Major sources only relate to a point that has nothing to do with company, really. Only source to talk about the company is a college paper. No. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a new start-up venture, sourced largely to its own blog, aside from one pre-launch start-up pitch-piece on what they plan to do. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete: This article by Berkeleyside - a major publication on the East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area) provides credible citation for the startup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashmahendra (talk • contribs) — Yashmahendra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Frazier

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

Notability is debatable; a high school athlete with some press, but overall significance of the subject is questionable. Prod removed. —Swpb^talk 14:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While presently failing WP:NTRACK, she does seem to pass WP:NHSPHSATH and WP:GNG as this article from a national publication specifically covers her remarkable feat in winning the 5k, 3200m, and 1600m races at the national outdoor high school championships. Pinging Hmlarson as the editor who deprodded the article. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:ATD, the policy (w/ emphasis added in bold) is "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." The subject of this article meets WP:GNG criteria w/ adequate sourcing. The article could use some cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article requires updating and possible expansion, not deletion. The above votes provide the necessary evidence. Thmazing (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Army Marksmanship Unit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article was previously deleted under CSD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is an important article, as they have sponsored many great shooters such as KC Eusebio, Max Michel and Daniel Horner. Sauer202 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source of many U.S. Olympians, prominent role internationally in shooting sports, well-known unit within the U.S. military. --- Evans1982 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by the others, this unit is a highly significant entity within the world of competitive marksmanship. Google searches reveal plenty of coverage, including this 2008 New York Times article about the unit and a similar 1985 piece from the Associated Press. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant unit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Got7. And I will protect the page so it cannot be turned back into an article. Jenks24 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tuan

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is the third or fourth time a page for this person is being deleted and while it seems to be different from the last version I saw nothing has changed in the time since that page was removed to have made this person individually notable. Peachywink (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect and perhaps protect if needed as there's certainly no better independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect will prevent its re-creation. Deletion and salting will be a good decision. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to GOT7 - And at this point, salt might be indicated, since it keeps getting recreated, with no improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mounao Thoibi

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

This seems pretty clearly non notable. I can't find any significant independent reporting about this film, only blog, a Facebook page, and a load of download/watch online sites. Chazchaz101 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expended searches:

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

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

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

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

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

and for Indian topics, WP:INDAFD: "Mounao Thoibi" "Romi Meitei" "Laishram Santosh" "Rakesh Rosha" "Bala Hijam" "RT Films"

Comment: As the topic does seem sourcable away from the social media and download sites which speak toward even the most notable of films, it is not so "pretty clearly non notable". I'll do some work before reporting back. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was waiting to see if there was any improvement. I can't find anything to help, and in its current state doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Malan Breton. Any merger from the history is an editorial matter subject to editorial consensus as always. Sandstein 19:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malan's Musings

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

Created by Malan Breton's PR, (a major conflict of interest). Almost completely sourced to primary sources. I do not see evidence that Breton's column, no matter how long-running, deserves its own article. Mabalu (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malan Breton. Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the person. It is already sufficiently covered there, so there is nothing here worth merging. No possible separate notability. The bio article and other pages linking there need attention for the presence of promotionalism as well. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There may well be nothing to redirect to. Malan Breton has just been protected against further sockpuppet edits by Jasonbenz2 and has been retagged for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. The entire WP:Walled garden may be coming down. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, another editor has removed the speedy tag and done clean up. A merge is indeed possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Malan Breton. Plausible search target. sst✈^(discuss) 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malan Breton. Don't believe merge is warranted, since the parent article already contains all the pertinent info, but SSTflyer is definitely correct that this is a plausible search target, but that would be covered by the redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFocus

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

Spam article created by single-purpose account for promotional purposes. Questionable notability and weak references. Citobun (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage. Some fringe trade journals, PR/marketing websites - yes. Mentions in passing in them? Yes. Notable? No. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. sst✈^(discuss) 10:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Miller (Internet celebrity)

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

References don't support notability. Currently all that's in the article is a bunch of first-party accounts from Youtube and social media. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Moriarty specifically the comment by User:czar. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep as having multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources for WP:GNG, such as WP:VG/RS. [38][39][40][41][42] (lesser [43], not on list [44][45]). The article seems to imply notable presence and some of it can probably be sourced from a variety of other sources. I'm always iffy on people's notability, as sources are usually either in relation to their work or direct interviews. But I would say it seems sufficient for GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Game Awards [46] win looks good and gives some coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep He is one of the most well known and influential internet podcasters and certainly deserves an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep He has one of the top podcasts on the internet and deserves this entry for all the years he's put into his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.204.140 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that articles are primarily decided based on whether the topic is notable in Wikipeda terms, that is, meets WP:GNG criteria - multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. While being influential/famous presumes notability, it is the existence of sources that determines so on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has to be verifiable and that is done by sourcing. Nothing to do with "deserving" or any other measure. Deletion arguments that do not provide or dispute such sources are typically not relevant or accounted for. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two of the !votes above do not provide guideline-based rationales for retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep has just won The Game Awards 2015 in "trending gamer" category [47]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Deleted or Redircted to IGN, I never heard him, I assuming he probably or super oblivously self-embarssed sterotypical hipster gamer from judging by his look? And really?!?, He got his page just quick only because people remember him recently doesnt help his page to stand up? 70.61.121.86 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically WP:IDONTLIKE ? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly sure? 70.61.121.86 (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:IMSUREIDONTLIKE. OK got it. Thanks for your contribution. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Put still they souldnt call him as real Gamer of this year for 2015 put in same time as Ex-IGN Editor, Maybe dont to be somewhat unintentional boost his own ego, I only thought want Markiplier won, To replace PewDiePie this time?, Put anyway what you really been immature right now, Seen is oblivously red link with not in used in simliar way like WP:IDONTLIKE 70.61.121.86 (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Jules is getting at is that discussions on Wikipedia are not votes and are considered in terms of arguments. In this case, the only really relevant argument is whether Wikipedia's notability criteria are met - multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Saying "keep" or "delete" without basing this on Wikipedia's policies/guidelines is otherwise pointless. Whether you have heard of him or believe he deserves a page is irrelevant. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page needs some cleaning up to make it a lot less "crufty", however he clearly meets WP:GNG. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Del Rico

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

WP:PROD was contested by an IP who says he is Del Rico. There is no indication that this meets WP:ENT. The sources are external links to IMDB, or worse, most of which don't actually mention Del Rico at all. He has had two film roles, both very minor. Grayfell (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this even likely speedy and PROD material as he only has two films, both of not outstandingly notability for him so he's clearly not notable. Notifying tagger RichardOSmith. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete just because a road comic doesn't get high profile publicity shouldn't be a reason to discredit my Stand Up career here on Wikipedia! Yes my two movie roles are not huge box office films but, they are still work that I have done in film. You have Jon Caparulo on Wikipedia and he was a doorman at the Comedy Store when I was performing Stand Up there. I don't get it, why so adamant to delete my article???
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. sst✈^(discuss) 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is a not a place to advertise (although many companies try). Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nerul Balaji Temple, Maharashtra

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

Claims no notability, fails WP:GNG §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have liked to see a fuller nomination; Indian subjects can be difficult for the rest of us. At first glance this looks like one of those impressive south Indian temple towers from centuries ago -- but if I understand it correctly, this is actually a geographically displaced modern replica of the Venkateswara Temple,[48] something akin to a Las Vegas Eiffel tower. It could still be notable according to WP:GNG (if there are better sources out there), but it can hardly be important in itself. It is probably better to just mention it with a sentence or two within some other article. --Hegvald (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discoveredindia.com doesn't seem to be much a reliable source to believe on. The temple is definitely not some centuries old one, but could be a scaled down replica. But had it been a replica it would have received some press coverage at inaugural or even while in the making. Honestly I feel, this claim of it being a replica is just a poor OR as many south-Indian temples show similar architecture styles and layouts. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough on searches to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to JD Sports. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 10:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloggs.co.uk

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:JussiJankulovski (creator, SPA) with the following rationale "Added sources from Econsultancy and York Press." Neither helps much; all the sources present and all I can find are niche/local, trade journals, or straight press-releases, as well as mentions in passing - primarily about a store opening somewhere. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough here for a very short page or possibly just a redirection to a merged JD Sports. I don't think it is so unbelievable that someone might look for information about the brand and ownership, and I think there is enough notability to do that. But agree the press releases and details about store opening are pretty weak. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to JD Sports. Not notable enough for a standalone article and clearly WP:ARTSPAM created by single-purpose account. Citobun (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with JD - No evidence of any notability so doesn't really warrant an article IMHO, Better off merged/. –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esfandiar Baharmast

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Number 57 with the following rationale "World Cup referee deserves a proper discussion at AfD". Fair enough, let's discuss why this person should be notable, keeping in mind that per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability, referees are not notable by the virtue of their profession - they have to pass WP:BIO/GNG on a case-by-case basis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - aka Esse Baharmast, articles like this and others show sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 12:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Article does need improvement. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show that plenty? Outside [49] and [50], both rather niche than mainstream, I am not seeing much, even searching for his "Esse" name version. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG Spiderone 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE as in invalid AfD vote rationale. You have to say why you think he is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few articles/pages from a book on him. [51] [52] [53] Admittedly, his publicity is mostly related to one incident but I'd still say that's enough to pass him. It should probably be moved to "Esse Baharmast" but that's a discussion for another day. Spiderone 09:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also potentially notable for being the first American referee to officiate for two matches in a single World Cup. [54] Spiderone 09:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paywizard

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

Spam, note the creator's clear SPA/COI from their username, User:PayWizard plc. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Dalliance with the following rationale "enough refs. here to justify taking to AfD". Ok, so we are here - there are plenty of refs, and they all seem unreliable, niche, not-in-depth, and so on. I don't see anything better. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Should have been speedily deleted as soon as it was created two years ago for unambiguous advertising and clear COI. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Most other main contributors are also suspect SPAs. Despite existing for two years the content is still entirely advertising with nothing worth keeping. Google results for the subject are very sparse. Citobun (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up enough that it might be notable, but the article's promotional air would suggest WP:TNT is appropriate. Per WP:DEL4. The article has been tagged for over two years regarding its tone, without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Waziristan#History or Waziristan Accord. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

AfDs for this article:

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

A complete WP:COATRACK, there seems to be only two sources which make passing mentions of this so called "entity", nothing more. It survived two AFD's simply due to the fact that no one bothered to ask for sources and the argument "OH there are a lot of sources, I just cannot link them right now" was considered to be enough. The hilarious thing is that the entire wikipedia article about this "state" does not mention the state. This is like the article about "Taliban" not using the word "Taliban" in the entire article except the lede. This should be a SNOW for delete to be frank. Furthermore, I see from previous AFD discussions that not a single editor who voted for keep took the time to present any of his sources, they were just commenting saying "Oh there are a lot of reliabel sources out there". So this time, anyone who votes keep should be kind enough to include the links to sources which discuss this topic in depth. Otherwise such a comment appears to be mere words without any merit. RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before moving on to the content, I think the question here is whether there is any legitimacy/notability in the term. It seems to me that there are quite a number of books which use this phrase which could be considered to be reliable sources. These include this book and this book, both from 2013. There seem to be a fair number of others too, some apparently reporting that the previous President Musharraf negotiated a peace accord with them in 2006.

I can't really see a problem with the content, providing it is improved with better references. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Waziristan#History or Waziristan Accord. Now that the WP:COATRACK seems to have been cleaned up, the remaining summary can be easily integrated IMHO. Although I've found many sources on Google Books and News that mention IEoW, none really go in depth. A stand-alone article thus would probably not pass WP:GNG's significant coverage. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waziristan#History or Waziristan Accord, as there is not much out there, and it is all about Taliban. Ceosad (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Bogdanov

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

Questionably notable and improvable especially with its current version and the best links I found was only this, this, this and this. It's worth noting it seems the subject himself started this in April 2008 and frankly it hasn't changed much since. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first two Glasgow Herald refs on the article, this news item, the Birmingham Post article that it's in the 3rd link provided by the nominator... those four articles are buttressed by a few other Gnews hits that I think he just meets WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zed (company)

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

Questionably notable and improvable company article given the current version and the best I found was simply this, this and this which are hardly enough to suggest better improvement even if this article claims they are the "leading mobile phone value-added services (MVAS) player in the world in terms of revenue and geographical footprint". I honestly haven't looked closely at Spanish news sourced as it won't be simple and frankly there's nothing to suggest optimistism for searching further. Notifying Spanish users Vrac and Crystallizedcarbon (que bueno verlos otra ves, hermanos! ) who may have some Spanish insight and also tagger Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure puffery; no solid indication of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but trim down puffery and content not referenced by reliable sources. I think the article could be neutralized, and there is enough non-routine coverage from independent reliable sources in this case to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Here are just three examples of reliable sources in Spanish that I believe do satisfy those requirements: Article from El Confidencial, Article from El País and Article from ABC. Regards to SwisterTwister and others from this side of the pond.--Crystallized C (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to the article being kept if it can be improved and I may also search some Spanish newspapers later. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Amigo

, I just checked La Razón (Madrid) and El Mundo (Spain) and they also have articles that talk about the company. If I have some time latter on the week and nobody else takes the challenge, I may try to neutralize the article myself. Saludos.--Crystallized C (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have neutralized the products and services section and added some references, the article still needs more work.--Crystallized C (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. , but move to Zed Group. the larger unit that contains a number of other related firms. There seems to be enough material for notability DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with DGG it makes sense to move the article to Zed Group.--Crystallized C (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coimbatore-Salem MEMU

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Orphan. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:GNG. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City Light News

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

Here is the best info I could find on this paper. [55] Does it pass GNG? Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NME guideline on Newspapers, etc. #5. There are additional sources such as [56] for notability, [57] for evidence that this is a source that is used to document local events in a niche community per the guideline, and [58], which doesn't go to notability (since it is a directory listing), but does help allay verifiability concerns.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We don't get to say it is important, we have to have sources to show it is seen as such. [59] is the best source, and doing some snippet digging it seems to go for at least a few sentences. But that aside, I see nothing; no mention on Google Scholar. There is niche coverage of it in [60]. I'll not vote weak delete for AGFing the book and assuming it discusses this media a bit more, but this is pretty borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A grand total of 700 subscribers? Local Christian monthly? This fails notability by a mile. Just more of Neelix's house of cards created for his own idiosyncratic promotional purposes. Softlavender (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads in its entirety "City Light News is a Christian monthly newspaper based in Calgary. It is delivered to over 700 locations in central and southern Alberta on the last Sunday of each month.[citation needed] Peter McManus is the editor and publisher. It was first published in 1987." Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the sources cited above fail to demonstrate notability. The talk page says that it is cited in various media, which do sound like WP:reliable sources; but not every outlet cited in RS is itself a RS, nor is it thereby notable. It can be useful to keep articles about specialist/minority media, but this one does not add value to the encyclopedia. – Fayenatic London 23:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As premature. Can be editorially redirected perhaps. Sandstein 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shhuddhi (2016 film)

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

This page can be created once the principle photography of the film starts and that will happen only in January 2016 Rajeshbieee (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Film's cast has been revealed. Needs to be improved. D'SuperHero (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary delete as while film's production is getting a lot of coverage it has not yet been confirmed as filming... and as soon as filming is confirmed, the article can be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Due to the topic sourcability meeting WP:GNG [61][62] even if premature for an article, it would make sense to redirect this to its sourcable director Karan Malhotra for a short time. If made it can come back. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator please check to see if this is a recreation of Shhuddhi? If it is, then we should delete per criteria G4. BOVINEBOY2008 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovineboy2008: As sometimes happens, that earlier version was simply Too Soon, and this newer version is different enough to not fall under G4. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} , Admin, 23:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, as pointed out by MichaelQSchmidt - If the film gets made, then the article can be recreated. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rupert and the Frog Song. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert The Bear

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

The main issue is the lack of notability. Upon a web search, there is clearly confusion between "Rupert the Bear" (an unreleased album) and "Rupert the Bear and the Frog Song." The guideline for unreleased material setup by WP:Music suggests that if this was a scrapped album by the Paul McCartney, then it belongs on his main page, and not a independent article. However, as I can imagine, there would be a few editors that would object. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 03:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If parts of the album were worked into the animated film, then we could probably justify an article on one thing rather than two articles on both the film and the album. I am finding some passing mentions of the album, but they're all pretty much in passing. ([63]) So maybe a merge into the film's article? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rupert and the Frog Song. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We should probably keep the redirect, whether or not the album article is kept. Rupert Bear or The Adventures of Rupert Bear (as "Rupert The Bear" occurs only in the theme song to the TV series) seem like appropriate targets. Tevildo (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rupert and the Frog Song as per above editors. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Phillips (actress)

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

Wow. Does not come near GNG or any other notability guideline. John from Idegon (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable at this time and no notability and improvement to convince keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – most search results are unrelated to the topic. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. sst✈^(discuss) 10:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of organization (ecology)

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

This information can easily be found on other articles. RES2773 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to ecology, where levels can be explained in context, not isolation. This article reads like the Cliff's Notes version of an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Scott (VanossGaming)

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

Non-notable. Adam9007 (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No sources to be found. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete? You mean snowball delete? Lack of sources isn't a speedy criterion. Adam9007 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. No independent sources to verify notability. The article even contradicts its supposed notability with "quietly known as." GabeIglesia (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up any substantial coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Webber

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

Looks like a vanity page. Has clear COI and SPA issues. Poor article in general (just an extended resume painting subject in positive light), does not seem to me to be notable enough to justify an article. No significant coverage in respectable outlets. Rayman60 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing convincingly better aside from some news notices and republished news notices at Highbeam (only 1) and browsers (a few). Simply nothing for a better article yet, SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. CEO of one notable company , Innerphase, and one probably notable one, Virtual Piggy. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Becoming a CEO makes you accomplished, not necessarily notable. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cutlass Music Group

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

Not notable. No releases can be found according to discogs or google. Huge COI/SPA activity. 733 Facebook fans, 54 Twitter followers (no tweets for 18 months). 1 or 2 releases (self-released on iTunes) with no reference to label, no further info via google. Website no longer working. Reference #2 is to a release on another label. No specific guidance on label notability, but this feels far off any notability guidelines. Rayman60 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe even speedy. Non-notable label. No independent coverage, no length of history, no roster of notable artists. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews from New York City

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

Completely useless list. Fraught with typographical and stylistic errors and comes nowhere near the scope of what this article should include, namely being hundreds if not thousands of entries longer. Even if it were an accurate and full list it would add nothing to the encyclopedia, but as it is not even that, it is less than useless. JesseRafe (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep more than satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BLPCAT. The history of Jews in New York City is a well-known part of American culture.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A "strong" keep? Did you read the article or just see the title? This was very recently created and only edited by a few editors who have very few edits among them and almost every entry has flaws in style or substance. And the article comes nowhere near the scope of its intended topic, just seems like a vanity page/project for the User:Ethanjesse who has already blanked this page. JesseRafe (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is very relevant, your argument doesn't have any reasoning to delete it. New York is one the most largely populated Jewish areas in the world. As this list shows, there are also many famous people. I also worked very hard on creating, researching, editing, and writing this page. It took me 8 weeks to create this. This is one of my first Wikipedia creates, and I don't think this should be deleted.

How is this article "useless"? This lists over 70 famous people from New York City. This article is error free and accurate.

Comment User:EthanDobres (above unsigned) is unambiguously the same user as User:Ethanjesse given their short contribution history and significant overlap. This is the second time this user has interfered with this proceeding. JesseRafe (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topical comment The article is useless, for the following reasons: It is not an article it is a list. As such it is wp:listcruft and has no substantive merit. While the assertion that it "lists over 70 famous people from New York City" may be true - why does that matter? There are over a hundred thousand famous people from NYC. And tens of thousands of them are Jewish. Thus this article fails to achieve what it sets out to do, and why should it even try to do that? What purpose does an endless serve? Should this be converted into an endless list of thousands of entries? What is the encyclopedic value of that? As to whether it is "error free" or/and "accurate" that is patently false. Ethan Jesse Dobres, since you are one person, please learn how to use capital letters. I see that you actually are 11 years old, not merely someone who writes like one. This article, much like the Mandel Brothers piece seem to be unambiguous vanity pieces written by someone just for the sake of writing one. They are unencyclopedic and both have a tenuous grasp on basic English sentence structure and punctuation/capitalization norms. JesseRafe (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator. Ethanjesse and EthanDobres are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethanjesse.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Jewishness and notability criteria are POV. Such a list can be added to Jews in New York City if anything. Zezen (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ at least as far as I can see. New York City certainly has a notable Jewish population and history. On the face of it, I'm not seeing why this list is "less than useless" and not a viable list per Category:Lists of American Jews and the underpopulated main List of American Jews. The nominator's argument that is useless, less than useless, completely useless and why does it matter etc just doesn't add up to a compelling argument, for me. As for the concern that this list could grow to thousands of names, WP:LISTPEOPLE does provide parameters for how people are included in standalone lists. And of course WP:NOTPAPER applies. Now, as with all lists and categories of people by religion we'd need to be careful that we're not adding names where Jewishness is not cited reliably in the article. And the sock puppetry is a concern. But I don't see a compelling reason to delete. I don't agree that Wikipedia:Listcruft applies in this case, in fact, the nominated list would seem to be a valid example of a standalone list according to that short essay. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, of course New York and its Jewry are well established. And there already are articles aplenty on the topic. This adds nothing of value, is not even close to the scope that is necessary for the topic; it is poorly written and researched and cited. It is obviously an 11-year-old's vanity project just so he could say "I made an article on Wikipedia", which is exactly what his defense of the deletion was. Many of the entries are not from New York in the first place.

I see well if the list is so fundamentally flawed, then I guess WP:TNT could apply. I have to say I don't think we should be using terms like "11-year-old's vanity project." There are people of all ages who are creating content here because they find it rewarding and we should not be singling out minors for scorn when they do that. That said, I see he has been blocked and I've removed my keep !vote, though if someone wanted to recreate such a list later I think it could be a very valid ist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator has been blocked, as well as a sock and an IP, now using IP User:65.127.85.11 to delete this topic entirely as well as the deletion notice on other non-encyclopedic article Mandel Brothers. JesseRafe (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Held over twice?!?! Really??? While a history of the Jews of New York City is easily, easily over the GNG bar, what we have here is an uncompletable list with uncertain inclusion parameters. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with nominator. Also note: WP:NOTDIRECTORY; Wikipedia:Listcruft; WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:MADEUP; and Wikipedia:Libel is a strong possibility in instances when subjects deny, hide, dislike or oppose any mention, in spite of verified information, of themselves as being "Jews" or "Jewish" or having any connections with Judaism in any way. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPOV list, identifying many who do not declare or even have an objective Jewish identity as such. Awful citation as well. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Conventions in Pictures

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

Seems to me to be an advertisement, but looking for a second opinion. The article itself makes no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:GNG. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 01:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Getting nominated for a TedxAmsterdam Award isn't very difficult to do, since it seems like all you need to do is submit an application. However it was a finalist (even made it into the top three, which helps matters some but I'm unable to locate who won, which is what ultimately matters with awards. However, there's also the issue of whether or not an award given by an independent portion of TED is notable enough to give partial notability, but we'll cross that bridge if I can find anything to show that it won. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't win. The Alzheimer's one did. On a side note, the award does seem to garner quite a bit of press so the award itself would show notability for the winner, however per guidelines it will only give notability for the winner and not the nominees. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the idea behind this is a good one and I solidly wish it'd received more coverage, unfortunately it never received anything beyond the TedxAmsterdam nod, which cannot show notability since it's just a nomination. It received a brief mention in Baaz, but only an offhand mention in regards to the award ceremony, which isn't enough. As far as I can tell, this project is still under development, so hopefully in the future it'll receive more coverage, but right now it's just far WP:TOOSOON for it to have an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect as this seems very logical. If someone feels strongly about it, the article is still in history (NAC)Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Classic New Zealand

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

This article is a fork of the MTV Classic Australia article. Given the Australian article has all relevant New Zealand information with additional referencing it would be better to delete the New Zealand page and rename the Australian page (e.g. MTV Classic (Australia & New Zealand)) Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with the Australian article and rename as per nom. Mattlore (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tytus Bergstrom

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

vanity page. fails notability. Tone and content unsuitable, too fluffy/PR-ey. created by SPA/COI editor who also wrote an extensive article on subject's project Reality TV Movie - follow the deletion discussion for that here. Rayman60 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST, fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and fails WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did manage to salvage the article for In Search of Lovecraft, which so far appears to be the one thing he's most notable for. If all else fails, we can delete and redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leery of the United States Dance Championships claim. It's backed up by a press release that just states "Tytus Bergstrom, former U.S Latin Dance Champion" and not much else about him - it's not even about the USDC. This means that it's entirely possible that what he won wasn't even through the USDC, which is possible given that there are a lot of similarly titled competitions out there - anyone who has ever participated in a beauty pageant AfD can vouch for this. I also cannot find anything while searching for his name and the name of the competition. There are plenty of primary sources from Bergstrom himself and from places that have hired him, but I can't actually find anything from USDC and I can't see his name listed on their website anywhere. This means that for all practical purposes we have to consider this claim as one that cannot show notability. Other than that, the article claims that he taught notable people, however that in and of itself doesn't always guarantee notability - the big thing about this is that you have to show where his teaching was notable by way of multiple independent RS that discuss him. The only non-primary source in the article is from the Spartan Daily, a college newspaper. The link isn't showing up properly, but a look through the Wayback Machine shows that it was a passing, trivial mention in regards to a dancing competition that occurred on campus. College newspapers are occasionally usable if they're known for being very reliable, however even then the coverage would need to be secondary and in-depth. A passing mention in an article about something that happened on campus does not accomplish this. I'm still digging for sources, so it's still possible I might find something out there, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible redirect. I can find nothing out there to show that Bergstrom is notable for his dancing career. He has one film under his belt that is notable, the Lovecraft film, but at this point in time he lacks coverage for anything else that would show notability. There are one or two brief mentions here and there in relation to something else, but never in any context that would establish notability for him as a performer or educator. It's possible that there is coverage out there that predates the Internet given that the most notable portions of his career occurred during '92 and '93, but if it exists it's fairly well buried and there's nothing recording any of this other than Bergstrom himself or his representatives. Even a search on Highbeam brings up nothing, as does a search via Drexel's library database. We could redirect to the article for the Lovecraft film, but the question here is whether or not it's really worth redirecting or not. Redirects are cheap, but I've heard the argument that it doesn't really help much unless the role is particularly well known. I figure I'll leave that up for the closing admin. Either way, the promotional nature of the article makes me believe that its history should be deleted prior to this redirect's creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Winning in the amateur category of that dance championship does not appear to confer notability. If every amateur participant and winner of every competition of this ilk had an article, we'd already have been overrun by the sheer volume of profiles on the project. If appearing in In Search of Lovecraft is their only other claim to fame, that to me indicates failure of notability too. It was so poorly received and so minimally distributed, that again, if every person with a significant role in every film of similar standing had an article, the whole encyclopaedia would effectively be an imdb-esque directory with a little bit of side content. Rayman60 (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and the promotional tone of the article begs for WP:TNT, even if there was something to save. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep rationales are the consensus. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Park (Kamloops)

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

This is an article about a random city park created so it could be linked to [64] Tara Teng. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion this park is notable due to its local significance, and because it has sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Tripadvisor has it ranked as the #1 thing to do in Kamloops. I'd say it's a major urban park for that city, and meets WP:GEOLAND. It is adequately referenced. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor park in a small town. Fails notability. Just more of Neelix's promo activity. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Douglas Park (Langley), this one does seem to be considerably better sourced — even stretching into published books and extralocal media. While it's true that not all municipal parks get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist, they are allowed if you can make and source a substantive claim of notability — and with nine valid citations to a variety of sources, this one does have a valid WP:GNG claim to being at least somewhat more notable than the norm. As problematic as Neelix's Tara Teng obsession could be, not everything he did was always without justification — each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits, rather than being automatically shitcanned just because Neelix. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Langley, British Columbia (city)#Douglas Park. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Park (Langley)

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

are local parks worthy of articles, because I've been to this one and it is of no real significance to anyone beyond the people living within a few blocks except for being the site of a Freedom Week event organized by Tara Teng [65] (recently this content was deleted). Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion this park is notable due to its local significance. Thparkth (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very minor park in very small town. Dies not meet notability requirements at all. This was just part of Neelix's Tara Teng walled garden (the mention of it in that article has been deleted by now from article trimming). Softlavender (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards for city parks do allow some of them to make it into Wikipedia (for example, nobody would ever seriously suggest that we delete topics like Central Park, Stanley Park, Gorky Park, High Park or the Jardin des Champs-Élysées) — but they don't grant an automatic inclusion freebie to all municipal parks that can be shown to exist. But in this case there's no real claim of notability being made once you discount Neelix's misguided attempt to bestow notability on every single topic he could link in any way whatsoever to Tara Teng, and the level of sourcing is not adequate to fulfill WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Langley, British Columbia (city) § Douglas Park, which already has some information about the park. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official Langley site only has this to say about the park and its contents:

Douglas Park 206th Street & Douglas Crescent
This park has an accessible playground, 2 tennis courts, a water park (seasonal), bowling green, sports box, basketball hoops and public washrooms. Douglas Recreation Centre, situated in the park, offers many programs for the citizens of Langley and is also available for rentals such as wedding receptions or banquets, etc. For more information, phone (604) 514-2865.
Langley Spirit Square at Douglas Park - The Langley Spirit Square is a covered performance platform that can be book for medium to large public events. For information or to book the Spirit Square please call 604-514-2902. [66]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but other sources provide various coverage, such as [67], [68], [69]. Ultimately, it's mostly local, so I don't feel it qualifies for a standalone article. However, a merge would enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, per NA1000. sst✈^(discuss) 08:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Not enough for a standalone article. But would improve Langley, British Columbia (city) § Douglas Park as per Northamerica1000. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Riza Shaheen

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

WP:BLP of an artist, written like a cross between a résumé and a public relations advertisement and citing exactly zero references except for a contextless linkfarm of primary sources in the external links section. This is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article, regardless of their field of endeavour — it takes reliable source coverage, but none of that has been shown here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source this properly. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any issues with the article. It talks about an artist like all other pages for artists. Message the writer with issues on the page instead of deletion keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirakhatriii (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be included in Wikipedia, an article has to be referenced to reliable source coverage in media which is independent of him — but virtually all of the sourcing here is to primary sources which cannot carry a person's notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is really bad and most of the sources/links don't demonstrate any notability at all, but this Last Known Pose book suggests that there might be something there - I'm not sure though. Is this a case of TNT (destroy article that would be more work to revise than to write from scratch), Bearcat, or do you think he is not notable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References have been added to demonstrate the notability of the artist and the importance of his work. Please share constructive comments on how to improve this article. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueljervois (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are virtually all still primary sources (his own website, the webpages of galleries with which he's been directly affiliated, etc.), and fail to constitute reliable source media coverage which is independent of his own public relations materials. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. kindly note that the references on which this article is based "constitute reliable source media coverage". The Guardian, The Times of India, The Artists Information Company, Flux Magazine, Manchester Evening News, Art Fund, The Reviews Hub, Art Now Pakistan, The Hindu, 2nd Generation, Creative Tourist, Manchester Wire amongst others are "independent of his own public relations materials." The artist has many publications to his name and this article is meant to inform those who are interested to learn more about his practice objectively. Further contributions by other readers are welcome to highlight his work. ===== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirakhatriii (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that you're overstating how "referenced" the article really is. There isn't, for example, a single reference to The Guardian anywhere in the article; that publication is mentioned only as the provider of a POV review quote which is sourced nowhere, and doesn't actually belong in our article at all per our rules about not turning the article into an advertisement for the subject instead of an encyclopedia article about the subject. Art Fund is a charitable organization, not media. Creative Tourist and The Reviews Hub and Manchester Wire fail our rules against sourcing to blogs. The reference to The Hindu isn't about him; it just mentions his name a single time as a passing namecheck in an article that's actually about somebody else. And on and so forth — nothing here comes anywhere near as close to being "reliable source media coverage" as you seem to think it does. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Seems a bit harsh. Presumably the Guardian think he is notable enough to mention an exhibition he is involved in. I agree it isn't enough, but it isn't nothing either (given that there are a lot of exhibitions which could be mentioned, and they've mentioned these). I don't think an article in a well-known media source which is written by journalists and is not an "opinion piece" can be considered to be a "POV article". Of course, one can disagree with the authors that this exhibition is notable, but the fact is that writers for this newspaper working in the normal editorial system think that this artist is notable. That meets the standard for independent assessment of notability. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely missing the point of what I even said about The Guardian: the most important point, the one you didn't address here at all, is that no reference details have been cited to verify that they really published the claimed content — it's just plopped into the article as an unsourced quote. Which means we can't verify whether it was made in an actual article about him, in a 50-word "things to do this weekend" blurb, as an aside in an article about somebody else, or what. And as an encyclopedia, we're not all that interested in the opinions that reviewers have expressed about the quality of his work anyway, but in what media have or haven't published about the objective facts of his career — because a Wikipedia article is not allowed to read like a public relations advertisement. And the standard for "independent assessment of notability" is that he has to be the subject of substantive coverage (not passing mentions in coverage of other things, not ten word review quotes, but substantive coverage) in multiple reliable sources (not just one). But the sourcing that's been proffered here so far fails to demonstrate that at all — it takes more than "has had his name mentioned in major newspapers" to get a person into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I don't understand. I'm not here talking about how a quote from the Guardian piece has been used in on the page, but the fact that the Guardian article exists. Which it does. And no, we're not just interested in the "objective facts of his career" primarily, but whether this artist is notable enough to have a wikipedia page about him. One criteria for the latter decision is whether he is noted in the media, and clearly this is a note in the media about his exhibition. It is clearly also more than a "mention" given it is a review of his exhibition with the clear implication that readers might like to go and witness his exhibition. That in and of itself is a claim to notability. Not enough on its own, I agree, but certainly something pointing toward it. JMWt (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what you've shown there is an 85-word blurb about him, which does not constitute substantive coverage. And every art exhibition that exists at all will be believed by somebody as something that "readers might like to go and witness" — but that's not a thing that entitles a person to a Wikipedia article, because it's a subjective statement of opinion. Our inclusion criteria are based on objective and quantifiable achievements, such as winning notable art awards or being the subject of enough media coverage that the person has satisfied WP:GNG, not just the ability to demonstrate that the person exists. But an 85-word blurb constitutes evidence of existence, not evidence of notability — especially if that 85-word blurb is the most solid source anywhere in the entire article. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After having researched this artist's work and read all his publications at the British Library and Live Art Development Agency's study room, it is evident how extensively his work has been written about by eminent scholars and academics. Cornerhouse publications have a significant book in the pipeline to be published this year celebrating his work over the last 20 years through a collection of essays and reflections.^[2] LADA is also releasing a DVD of his video works. The artist was nominated for the Northern Art prize in 2010. Notability is surely about contribution to knowledge rather than media endorsements alone. User:Samueljervois

References

^ http://www.bitsaa.org/news/20414/Baradwaj-Rangan-Baddy-bags-National-Film-Awards-for-Best-Film-Critic.htm
^ Shaheen, Qasim Riza. "The Last Known Pose". Cornerhouse Publications. Retrieved 18 November 2015.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom 10

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

No (or very weak) evidence of independent notability for this web column. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with reliable, independent, third party sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism-tagged since 2011. Majority of the sources are from espn.com itself. Article is mostly summary of the poll and does not establish that the poll is notable. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X96lee15 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2015‎ (UTC)
- Response true that many of the sources are ESPN which does not speak to notability of the article, but they can be used to source the article itself. There are other sources to establish the notability. While I grant they are listed as few, they should not be ignored.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Paulmcdonald: Paul, can you link to three examples of significant coverage of the Bottom 10 in "reliable, independent, third party sources," i.e., those that are not affiliated with ESPN, ABC, Disney, etc.? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think three is necessarily a "requirement" or threshold, but I just added two: Tulsa World and SportsEdge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Pamulmcdonald. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to ESPN.com. Not enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. As a concession we can merge, but it seems WP:UNDUE even there when there is no independent coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Bottom Ten is not solely an ESPN creation, and it has been a sports byword for decades. Steve Harvey's column (and coverage of his Bottom 10 in other sources) goes back to the 1960s [70][71] [72][73]. Here's a 1973 Sports Illustrated piece about Harvey and his column that goes into some detail about its early syndication history. [74] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: Each of the different "Bottom 10" iterations you have identified above are discretely different subjects, not a single "Bottom 10". Some "Bottom 10" subjects may be notable, others not. It does not appear there are sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources of ESPN's "Bottom 10" to support its notability, and some mention of it may be incorporated into the ESPN article. Likewise, if Sport Illustrated sports columnist Steve Harvey is notable, perhaps some mention of his "Bottom 10" column would be best incorporated there. Slamming this different subjects together in a single article is a mess, more like a disambiguation page than an article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect and misstates the sources. As spelled out in the sources I cited, Steve Harvey was an LA Times reporter who began his Bottom 10 in the 1960s, then began syndicating it. It was not a Sports Illustrated product. Independent coverage is here. The current ESPN column is (self-admittedly) a rendition of the same concept as Harvey's column. There's a clear topic here and it doesn't serve the reader to bury it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: My apologies. Please substitute Los Angeles Times (and Chicago Sun-Times) for Sports Illustrated in my comment above, and the basic premise still holds: what significant coverage in independent sources there is of the "Bottom 10" is about Steve Harvey's column, not about ESPN's "Bottom 10". Yes, one of your linked articles incidentally mentions ESPN, but the subject of the article is Colorado, not ESPN's "Bottom 10". This article hopelessly confuses Steve Harvey's probably notable "Bottom 10" sports column with ESPN's non-notable bit, which is admittedly a rip-off of Harvey's column. You are conflating two completely different subjects of the same name; they are not the same thing. To emphasize that point, according to one of the articles you linked above, Harvey apparently restarted his "Bottom 10" column in 2008, and it was not the same as ESPN's "Bottom 10". Having a single Wikipedia article for Steve Harvey's column (which is barely mentioned) and ESPN's schtick (for which no significant independent coverage exists) is a promotional mess. Virtually all of the coverage of the ESPN schtick is -- wait for it -- on ESPN or ESPN.com, and that's not independent coverage. If you want to keep this article title, it needs to be blown up and re-written as an article about Steve Harvey's column, not sourced with ESPN's non-independent, self-promotional coverage of itself. If you believe otherwise, please link to significant coverage of ESPN's "Bottom 10" in independent sources (i.e., those sources that are non affiliated with ESPN, ESPN.com, ABC, Disney, etc.). Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Mcdonald. 2605:A601:522:3A01:91E5:F0A6:4807:F8DA (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.bitsaa.org/news/20414/Baradwaj-Rangan-Baddy-bags-National-Film-Awards-for-Best-Film-Critic.htm

[2] Shaheen, Qasim Riza. "The Last Known Pose". Cornerhouse Publications. Retrieved 18 November 2015.

[1]

[2]