Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 August	28 August >

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xcaliber International

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

I had actually planned to nominate this a little while ago and I encountered it again today so here are: My searches found nothing to even suggest local notability with the the best results here, here, here and here. Thus it's simple to see there's no improvement for this sparsely edited article started by an IP in September 2005. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. I found nothing either, except for some primary material pertaining to some lawsuit or other. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. The article should have never left the sandbox. -CerealKillerYum (talk) 09:57, 29 August 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 Bethlehem Moravian College. Any content worth merging is still available through the article history. Randykitty (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vera MacLeavy

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

No evidence of notable. Only thing close to significant coverage comes from her obituary. Remaining coverage is either passing mentions or from non-independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage, no notability by way of profession. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately and at best it's best mentioned elsewhere (but there's not target as this is an orphan) and my searches found nothing better aside from a few Books. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Condense and merge to Bethlehem Moravian College, an article I just created, filling a redlink and provingind an appropriate target for merging this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as insufficiently notable academician. Quis separabit? 17:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough here to make this a useful addition to the College page, as SisterTwister implied, it is often more useful to condense a bio and merge it into an appropriate target article, than to delete useful information, in this case, about this history of a college that seems to be a significant institution in Jamaica.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farzaneh Sarvandi

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

Granted this is a foreign subject so sources may not be easily accessible (my searches found notjing good at all) and I considered whether or not to nominate it but maybe others can find better results than mine. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting CREATIVE, and from the article, I don't think there's lkely to be. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Coatepec. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coatepec (municipality)

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

Disambiguation page with two redlinks. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as duplicate of Coatepec, which should be sufficient. Articles exist for these places but under different names than what's in the disambig pages, I'll fix them. Vrac (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coatepec. It's a(n) WP:INCOMPDAB right now. However, as a redirect it'd be a(n) {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, which is totally acceptable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 10:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A municipality is inherently relevant and it has three blue links, not two red ones, but in this case the headline could be redirected to the Coatepec disambiguation page. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a duplication of Coatepec which is a dab page, and "Coatepec (municipality)" is not a plausible search item, anybody who searches for "Coatepec" wouldn't know whether it is a village, a city, a town, a neighborhood, a district, a region, a state, a CDP, or a "municipality". Kraxler (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Dalhouse

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

Secretary of one YMCA in Jamaica. Article currently has only one reference, which is a press release that doesn't even provide minimal coverage of the subject's life. Article creator has had eight years to add references, but has been unable or unwilling to do so. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Almost all coverage I could find pertains to the swim meet named after him (which may be notable, but that is another matter), and is not about him. Everymorning (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--no Gleaner archive is going to save this--total lack of coverage. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing convincingly good aside from this. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I'm convinced by the arguments given that a withdrawal is in order. While it seems a bit weak in terms of notability, I'm happy to comply with policy and consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Memorial Science College Ground

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

While listed as having Jammu & Kashmir cricket team as home team, it really isn't (and that isn't enough reason by itself). This is a place that itself hasn't garnered enough media attention (via search) and isn't a geographical area, so it isn't automatically notable. I thought about redirecting, but Gandhi Memorial Science College is a redlink, so there is no logical place to redirect to. As a stand alone, I just don't see it passing WP:GNG nor being a valid exception. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing first class cricket is the WP:NCRIC notability guideline, so as this ground has hosted many first class cricket matches, that makes it notable in my opinion. The-Pope (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per The-Pope our guideline assumes notability for first-class cricket grounds. If an article is created for the College, a merge and redirect would probably make sense, but in the absence of that article, this one should be kept. Harrias ^talk 06:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:NCRIC. Just to give an example, Wankhede Stadium is a world famous cricket stadium but very few people hardly knows who S. K. Wankhede is. His article is also stub. There is also a Nahar Singh Stadium but article on Nahar Singh was once nominated for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahar Singh. So it does not matters if that college itself doesn't has article but ground associated with that college has hosted first class cricket matches and also a home ground of state level team so it deserves article. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 10:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zameer Ahmed

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no sources, and the claims to have won awards seem to be false (the "prestigious Padma Shri for Journalism in 2008" actually went to Shri Vinod Dua and the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards 2006 don't mention Ahmed anywhere). McGeddon (talk) 21:44, 27 August 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 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Wishingrad

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

Every source I can find that mentions Wishingrad is either about one of his companies or is him doing the talking (interviews, TV discussions, etc). His companies may be notable, but I see no indication that he is independently notable from them. Note that previously a draft was declined, a former iteration of this page was speedied, and the creator was warned against creating an autobiography. I don't think even the magic of Everymorning's cleaning can fix this one (though I can appreciate the effort made). Primefac (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's cogent argument. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, totally agree Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found all across Books, News and browser with my first searches, there's nothing to suggest convincingly good improvement. Feel free to draft & userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Coker

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

Coker is not a notable football player because he fails WP:NCOLLATH. There isn't anything on him that is "out of the ordinary" (ie: non-routine coverage). I would argue that even his Insight Bowl suspension would be routine, because there isn't significant, independent coverage of it (press releases aren't independent per WP:GNG.) Even then, it'd be a WP:BLP1E. Maybe one of these years, he could crack an NFL/CFL roster and become notable, but until then, there isn't enough on this person to make him notable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Barely passes WP:GNG, even if he doesn't pass WP:NCOLLATH. Some sources in the article are routine coverage, yes, but some are not: [1] [2] [3]. In addition to those, I've found the following sources that are significant: [4] [5] [6]. Most of these focus on Coker, not the team. ~ Rob^Talk 10:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep per Rob. I deprodded it thinking he was notable, and still plieve he passes GNG, if barely so. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was contemplating a "delete" !vote for this subject until I saw Rob's linked sources above, five significant articles in which Coker is the primary subject in three different regional newspapers (i.e. independent sources): Baltimore Sun, Newsday and Des Moines Register. This satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Outdoors Group Fitness

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

Newly founded local company that, from what I see with my searches, hasn't gotten much third-party coverage and, even if there was the slightest, I doubt there would be enough for local notability. Notifying taggers @MaryGaulke, Obsidian Soul, and The Blade of the Northern Lights:. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally came across this when it was a userspace draft directly moved (without review) into article space without the {{userspace draft}} tag being removed. I think I became aware of it as a result of the author asking for help on how to remove it from either the RefDesk or the IRC help channel (I can't remember anymore). Either way, I couldn't find evidence of notability earlier, and I still can't find evidence of notability now. The company may not even exist anymore (if it ever did). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have used A7 and probably G11 on this one: "and has begun an advertising campaign within Lancaster as of early 2011." "The group was recently covered in the business section of the Lancaster Guardian[2] detailing its goals and noted that two locations in Lancaster were currently in use." DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DrKiernan (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David whittet

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

Non-notable person. Whittet is indeed a producer of several films (three listed at IMDb), but none of them appear to be notable films. The text is unclear as to whether Whittet's film Amiri & Aroha or its star Shayne Biddle was the winner of the 2012 Prestige Award, but neither fact would really bolster any notability as the Prestige Award appears to be largely a "pay to be recognized" type of award. The claim that Whittet is the first New Zealand doctor to have won the prestigious WONCA Award for family medicine is not verified by the cited source (which is a broken link), nor is their any indication at WONCA's website that they present any such award. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Links to WONKA fixed. The Prestige Film Festival is just that... a film festival which you pay to enter like Sundance. It is not a pay to be recognised award, this statement is bordering on the ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktoriasoviet (talk • contribs)
Keep Links seem to be fixed and he is the only New Zealander to win the award (from the WONKA site the winners:) The film festival is a normal film festival and not a pay to win. Mango 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Previous Winners of the WONCA Foundation Award

1989 - Dr Lorenzo Fleitas; Spain

1992 - Dr Juris Lazovskis; Latvia

1992 - Dr Vaclav Benes; Czech Republic

1998 - Dr David Whittet; New Zealand

1998 - Dr Abdul Sattar Tabani; Pakistan

2001 - Prof Jannie Hugo and Dr Ian Couper; South Africa

2010 - Dr David Whittet; New Zealand

Comment My note about the Prestige Award is based on their own website, which explicitly states: "Our goal is to help you promote your work." That's not the usual rhetoric of film awards. This one does not seem to be very notable. Nor does the WONCA award. The bottom line is that there are no sources of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also name is spelt wrong Whittet has small w this needs correcting wally 17:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escapement (talk • contribs)
~~""""Keep"""" just fix up the name ""W"" Majorsmithers (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment The name misspelling is a minor issue that could be fixed. The lack of notability cannot. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Confirmed sockpuppets' !votes stricken.
Speedy Delete The article has already been deleted twice at the correct location. See [7]. Subject hasn't become more notable since the previous discussion. -- haminoon (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Salfia (India)

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

It seems that it was deleted in 2007 and was created again by some one with out changing its condition. It lacks any single reliable source and is normal institution like thousands of Islamic seminary in India and Pakistan. ScholarM (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator added the above text to the 8-year-old previous discussion rather than creating a new discussion page, tagged the article with a standard (first) AfD template, and did not transclude anything to a current daily log. I believe I've fixed everything. I offer no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Searches on News, Scholar, Highbeam and JStor showed nothing about this institution. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It lacks notability and RS. I nominated it but could not proceed correctly. Sorry. ScholarM (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Institution is clearly is not "one of thousands of such institutes in India and Pakistan". According to official website, this institute was founded by ambassador of Saudi Arabia to India in 1963. This institute is not only "old" but also founded by "ambassador of Saudi Arabia" and more significant is that it is established in Varanasi which is known as "heart of Hinduism". So this Islamic institute can deserve article, campus is also seems big in pics. It is important with respect to India-Saudi Arabia relations. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable Saudi Arabia-related trivia. Quis separabit? 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No News, Scholar, Highbeam and JStor entries. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG by light years. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Health Service Culture

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

Completing nomination for IP editor, whose rationale (from WT:AFD) is reproduced below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Health Service Culture:

Consists mostly of direct quotations from different sources that simply define the relevant sense of "culture"
Contains only a few sentences that relate to health services
Has been edited less than 20 times altogether, the last time in 2012
Does not meet Wikipedia's style guidelines

and, most important,

Does not contain anything saying why culture in a health-service organization needs to be treated separately from culture of other kinds of organization.

I suggest that the subject is non-notable and therefore the article should be deleted; but as I am not a registered Wikipedia user (and am not going to become one), it will need someone else to agree with me and start the process. If, on the other hand, there is a consensus to keep it, then it needs a lot of improvement.

Thanks for your attention, --65.94.50.17 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SYNTHESIS from start to finish. It is possible that the topic itself might meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, but nothing now found in this article would belong in a policy-compliant version. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it is possible to write an acceptable article at this title it would not use any content from this version. Virtually all the article is a list of quotations about culture. Health or health services aren't mentioned except to note that they involve relationships between things and that health services are complex. WP:SYNTH from start to finish. Hut 8.5 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination and Hut 8.5. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 03:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Njere Alghanee

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

Longtime troubled and sparsely edited article that looks more like a personal page and my searches found nothing to suggest improvement (most fruitful searches here, here and here). She may have been well known and locally notable but there's also no alternative to deletion such as moving elsewhere. Pinging taggers PaintedCarpet and Discospinster. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I looked at this article last year for copy edit I didn't know where to start, it's such a mess. Agree with nomination. PaintedCarpet (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as hype (or self-promotion) by/for non-notable. Quis separabit? 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting that this is part of the Orangemoody affair, and that the sole account that has shown up to argue for "Keep" has been blocked as a sock. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koozai

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

A non-notable digital marketing agency. The sources seem like they might establish notability under WP:GNG and WP:CORP, but they really don't...

Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 11 are simply passing mentions rather than the "significant coverage" required by the GNG. The first source simply notes that a man who works at the company is competing in an Ironman Triathlon competition: that's sadly representative of the quality of sourcing.

Some sources are simply rewritten press releases: 3, 6, 9, 10 and 16.

Sources 8, 18, 19, 20 and 24 are self-published on the company's site.

Sources 12, 13, 14 and 15 are "guest blogs", which means they are also basically self-published.

Source 17 shows that the company is a Google partner. That isn't in any way notable, just promotional filler.

Source 21, 22 and 23 are industry awards.

While I shall assume good faith and not say definitively whether it was created as promotional spam, a relatively new account that does some minor WikiGnoming before writing an article about a marketing agency doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in me that this isn't paid editing. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete for now as although it would appear the article has several sources including from notable sources, there's not much significant and outstanding coverage with my searches here, here and here finding nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per notability criteria. Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 11 are not all just passing mentions but Koozai is cited and multiple mentions in a no. of sources including Time, BBC shows enough notability for a digital marketing agency. I am not sure about the unreliability about guest blogs as such posts requires to comply with website's own policy and it is usual that experts in relevant domains are requested to do so and all those websites are notable and have their own articles on English Wikipedia. I also do not think independent sources like the Guardian, BBC or Daily Mail etc. will put press releases in their news. Source 21, 22 and 23 are industry awards and those awards indicates notability. Self-published sources are used as per WP:SELFPUB. Thank you.Dendsoli (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This really needs more discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their passing mentions. Also note that user Dendsoli has only 45 edits so take that into consideration when reading his comment. CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check my rationale posted above. They all are not passing mentions. The subject is widely covered in third party independent sources which easily passes the primary criteria, WP:ORGIND etc. One can check news sources and Google Scholar results. Besides, the company has own several awards which shows notability and I think my edit count has nothing to do with this AFD. Thanks, Dendsoli (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dendsoli, don't be offended, it is perfectly normal at AfD to note that a 'voter' is the creator of the article, and that they have a (in your case relatively,) small number of edits. I'm afraid I agree with others that this KIND of sources (and their use), does not inform much about this company and it is relatively promotional.Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. But, they have own several awards and awards indicate notability. Can I edit it to remove the promotional tone? Sorry, if I am wrong about the criteria. Regards,Dendsoli (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The better sources are passing comments which do not establish WP notability for the company itself, (though it may be known 'within the trade'). The Guardian piece is written BY someone at Koozai, rather than being about Koozai. The tone is relatively promotional, which does not help (Why say it was featured in XYZ, rather than saying what was said about it by XYZ?). This could be a case of TOOSOON, but for now that means 'delete'.Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect I disagree with your rationale. The company is being referred in multiple independent reliable sources like BBC, Daily Mail, Time, Daily Telegraph etc. Their views/comments have been published in independent reliable sources. If Koozai is not a notable company in SEO field then why would the news sources refer them or even quote their comments? Google news sources returning many independent sources about Koozai[8] which can be added in the article. The company has own several awards which also indicates notability. If the article's tone is promotional then I can tone down the promotional wordings. Can you please, help in this? Regards, Dendsoli (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please, note that their survey on "small-to-medium-sized enterprises" is noteworthy and has received wide coverages by independent reliable sources like The BBC, Telegraph, The Guardian etc. Also, this Guardian news piece is not written by anyone from Koozai. Thanks. Dendsoli (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also edited to make the article more neutral. Any suggestion or help would be appreciated. Dendsoli (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was accidentally commented out of the log page for 2 August due to an edit conflict. Relisted for the current day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 20:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Turns out the user who created this article is one of the accounts that got caught in the giant paid editing cleanup last night. I pointed out in my nomination statement that the user's behaviour doesn't exactly inspire confidence in me that it wasn't paid editing, and it now looks like my hunches have been confirmed. Can we call this what it is—paid advertorial spam—and finally get rid of it? —Tom Morris (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first reference is about a person's sporting achievement, with a very brief mention that the person works for Koozai. Other refs that I checked were also by-the-way mentions—none of them provide evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Rasool

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

AfD: Nominated for deletion - Fails WP:Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egopearl (talk • contribs)

This article does not fail notability. There are only a few sane voices in a country in Pakistan. And Saad is a prominent voice in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghazi5 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The articles fails notability because the sources consist merely of his articles. He may be a lawyer and may have gone to Harvard but that alone is not enough to make the subject notable. Therefore the article fails notability. 42.83.84.218 (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references are either about the subject's cases, with the lawyer himself a very subsidiary consideration, or pure PR about them . Newspapers are not imune to the publication of PR. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-This lawyer and journalist's notability is established through his outspoken advocacy in Pakistan on important issues, like acid attacks on women, which have been written about in independent sources, like BBC here (“Sahad Rasool, a lawyer working on a new law to criminalize acid attacks.”) and the Pakistan Express Tribune/ Int'l New York Times here "Advocate Saad Rasool said the Act would help treat acid or burn incidents not only as a crime but as a social issue.” Some, but not all, of the sources listed here are articles written by him, making it not so easy to identify primary sources from independent ones. ABF99 (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not technically a "re"list--discussion page was created without afd2 template or transclusion to daily log. Fixed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 19:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally run of the mill as a lawyer, he literally does not even have a single factor of my standards for attorneys. Completely lacking in reliable sources, this stub can not be turned into an article. Harvard is the largest law school in the United States; merely getting an Ll.M. (even if it were true?) does not make one automatically notable. While his major cause is worthy, we are not a soapbox, nor are we a webhost service for charitable causes. He completely fails the prof test. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. sami ^talk 05:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bangtan Boys. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Nam-joon

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

This member has no significant solo work outside of work he has done with his group so this page is not necessary at this time.his solo music career in most time is featured other artist (cameo) and no main artist in solo music activity For example solo mini album or studio album or Songs with chart and does not Activities outside the group As an actor ,main cast member in variety show.Furthermore it has information that is not notable enough to be included on a normal artist page.I believe the page should be removed or redirect to Bangtan Boys page.(Pikhmikh (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I believe this member does have significant solo work outside his group. His collaborations do not necessarily mean he is not the main artist. Some collaborations in this case are more of a partnership, cue the example with the one with Warren G and Krizz Kaliko, who are also highly respected musicians. I'm sorry I cant make out what you said about the solo mini album or actor part, but RM mixtape is a significant solo project as it doesn't involve the other group members and received sufficient coverage in the sources found on the references section. He may not be an actor, but he is a main cast member in a variety show, and also has an endorsement deal. And all this does not have anything to do with the other members of BTS. (Can you elaborate on what is included on a "normal artist page" as well?) Thank you Tigress223^t@lk 22:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- this page created by you but ,his solo activity is Less than that need separate page and Bangtan Boys Discography is Enough for his music career and many other singer with more important works of him has not separate page for example A Pink's member that their activity is more than him but their Page has been removed because their individual activities has no significant.,,,as well as Kim Nam-joon solo activity Not much until now and needs more time(Pikhmikh (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  - I may be the creator of this page but I am trying my best to keep an objective view. May I ask what counts as significant activity? and I also modeled the article from articles: Shin Jimin, Kim Seolhyun and Shin Hyejeong, so I don't understand what is wrong with this article's notability. Tigress223^t@lk 23:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - But I wont be stubborn, I'll try to see if there are any other sources I may find so I can amp this up Tigress223^t@lk 00:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looking at the three pages you listed as models I can say that none of them are well written articles. Looking at the pages it looks like Shin Jimin's only possible reason for even having a separate page seems to be her time on unpretty rapstar but I think her page should also be removed...maybe all 3 of them should be but I don't know enough about their individual work to make that call. They do however all use bad sources and I will be adding that tag to their pages shortly. Try to look for articles that have been rated good or better as articles are constantly being rewritten by fans and ips so you need to be careful when using one as an example to build off of. Peachywink (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the info Tigress223^t@lk 16:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think he yet fulfills WP:Musicbio. Yeah there is some media coverage, but allkpop and soompi are not reliable sources and the guideline for sources is that it can't be the artist talking about themselves and the articles cannot be reworded press releases, which currently account for a lot of the sources cited. Having followed Namjoon's career, I personally don't believe he has enough independent discography or recognition to have his own page yet. Asdklf; (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectof all the members in this group he might have the highest chance of one day getting his own page so I say it should be blanked and redirected for now because I do not see enough work outside of his groups activities that a separate article is necessary at this point.Peachywink (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually now that i think about it I guess redirecting would be a good idea, if this page really isnt fit for being an article by the community. If so, I think rap monster would get notable soon just not now, but it will be a little of a hassle to dig the article out again from deleted articles when reliable sources do show up. So in a way, I agree with your suggestion about the redirection, as it may be a better way to temporarily get rid of the article until the time is write if this page really isnt fit. Thanks for the suggestion :) Tigress223^t@lk 00:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Multiple sources confirm GNG which he passes easily. Yes, some sources may be indirectly primary, but those should do nothing but confirm the obvious interest in this artist. Reliability of some of the sources as being non-credible is by opinion and not WP consensus. That's a debate that should be addressed aside from this article and without bias to this bio. It is a well written article, with no bias. And although maybe slightly weak still referenced enough. None of the content is potentially libel or hurting wiki in anyway. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sulfurboy: There is consensus that Allkpop and similar sites are not reliable sources. (See WP:KO/RS.) Allkpop in particular is self-described as a gossip site. Random86 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I appreciate you pointing that out. I hadn't seen that before. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I've been watching this AfD since it started, but was trying to work out if they were notable enough or not. Per discussion above, if Allkpop and similar aren't considered reliable sources, then definitely fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be fine with a redirect. Joseph2302 is there any reason you'd be opposed to that?Sulfurboy (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suppport Redirect, seems sensible to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried my best to get rid of all the Allkpop, Koreaboo, Soompi(etc) which were deemed as unreliable sources. Tigress223^t@lk 17:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG . Donottroll (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect:most of his variety show is alongside Bangtan Boys's member and we saw this in their page and one mixtape is not reason for his prominent Is fair that his page merged to Bangtan Boys (Toomass (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. 75.144.16.173 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The amount of sources present demonstrate he passes GNG. A redirect is unnecessary IMHO. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but He still is not notable, according to Wikipedia policy It is true that he has More individual activities of other members of the group but Whether these activities are enough To make him independent of the group? his solo songs (except collaboration with warren g and mandy) are as a featured and Certainly their chart(singles) is not his song's chart he has just two collaboration songs and one mixtape, however I do not think that he still has notable solo activity,Let this article be written about him after multiple activities (Pikhmikh (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  - Let's just wait a little, he maybe charted with "fantastic" or maybe not on gaon. we dont know yet. and the krizz kaliko featured song he's the main singer in that song as well. Tigress223^t@lk 05:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Actually not a "re"list--article was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 19:14, 27 August 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. In evaluating consensus, I have ignored the strange IP !vote ("delete", but indicating agreement with Cunard, who had !voted "keep"). Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SharpEnviro

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

Unsourced, no assertions of notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete beyond what is asserted by nom, this would also require an entire re-write to eliminate advert style and peacock language. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage here in Lifehacker, here in TechRepublic, here in stadt-bremerhaven.de, and here in Softpedia. Since Softpedia allows users to download SharpEnviro for free, I don't think it can be disqualified as a source for having a conflict of interest in trying to sell the download.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SharpEnviro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. While the Lifehacker ref is significant RS coverage, this appears to be the only significant RS coverage of this discontinued OS interface. As it is discontinued, it is unlikely that any better coverage will be written. The techrepublic coverage is too brief, only a few sentences part of a list of software. stadt-bremerhaven.de/ is a blog and does not appear to be RS. Download sites are typically excluded from notability consideration because they have a financial interest in promoting the product even when it is offered for free.Dialectric (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Softpedia, an editor wrote in April 2012 summarizing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussions about Softpedia, "It seems that there has been very little or no discussion on this source since 2010. At that time the general consensus favored the source as reliable."
Another editor wrote: "Situationally reliable - Everything published with editorial oversight (i.e. with a staff name attached) should be treated as reliable, but everything else on the site should be considered self-published. Also, reviews should not be used as a source of notability because some of them are done upon request."
The Softpedia review of SharpEnviro was published with the staff name Madalina Boboc attached. The page was last updated August 23, 2014. And an Archive.org link of the page from January 2014 doesn't have the review, indicating that it was not added until between January 2014 and August 2014. SharpEnviro was discontinued November 2011. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that someone asked Softpedia for a review.
Since SharpEnviro is free, I don't see how Softpedia's allowing people to download this open-source program makes a Softpedia review unreliable or unusable in establishing notability.
Cunard (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Cunard. Not notable, and it's not like the article is A-class either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.139.75 (talk) 09:10, August 6, 2015

Cunard has argued for keeping the article. Also, if you plan to comment on Afd discussions, you may want to create an account if you haven't already.Dialectric (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was accidentally commented out of 31 July daily log page due to edit conflict with previous relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's just not enough ot there to establish notability. That Lifehacker article is probably the only thing SharpEnviro has going for it. Otherwise, it doesn't meet WP:GNG Gargleafg (talk) 23:17, 27 August 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. Also see WP:NEXIST and WP:RSUE. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Lin Feng

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

Chinese television martial arts competition. Fails to meet GNG with no significant independent coverage listed. Being listed on the Chinese WP doesn't necessarily make it notable for the English one.Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is probably the most popular and longest running martial arts TV program in China, comparable to WWE in the US. Googling its Chinese title gets you more than 1 million results, with significant coverage from every Chinese news site (more than 10,000 news items on Google news). Notable beyond doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - While being listed on the Chinese WP doesn't necessarily make it notable for the English one, having a well-sourced article on the Chinese WP does.--Antigng (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no - notability has nothing to do with its presence on Chinese WP The notability comes from the references which can be transferred over. Right now all I see is two results listings hardly indicating notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some authoritative Chinese sources to the article. I hope it'll settle any lingering doubt about the show's notability. -Zanhe (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Frazier

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

Karateka who fails both WP:MANOTE and GNG. Passing mentions in some tournament results and competing against some well known fighters is not enough to show notability. There is one good Black Belt article on him, but that's not enough (and I'm not sure how much independent research went into that article).Mdtemp (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is heavy with trivia of a minor nature and who he had associations with (WP:NOTINHERITED).Peter Rehse (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been updated. Individual was a top 10 ranked Black Belt Karate Fighter. He passes WP:MANOTE by being (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary and (2) Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion) . CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is just hard the way it is written to understand where the notability comes from. If it is there it is buried.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article gives undue importance to his Karate life, fails WP:MANOTE and is not encyclopedic. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been updated. Individual was a top 10 ranked Black Belt Karate Fighter. He passes WP:MANOTE by being (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary and (2) Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion) . CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ::Page has been updated. Individual was a top 10 ranked Black Belt Karate Fighter. He passes WP:MANOTE by being (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary and (2) Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event. Has faced and defeated many top fighters of his era. ARticles about him span the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting notable fighters doesn't make him notable. Repeating sources and listing passing mentions of him in results doesn't increase his notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Most of this article seems to be about the notable fighters he fought (and mainly lost to). However, notability is not inherited. The sources are primarily results from various tournaments. There is some coverage of him, but I don't think it's quite enough to meet WP:GNG. Losing your temper repeatedly and getting disqualified are not grounds for notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. to avoid problems, after deleting I will create and protect a redirect to John Robichaux DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Robichaux

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

All signs suggest this fabricated with my searches finding nothing but mirrors and no connection at all with the book. What's more is this sparsely edited article has existed since July 2005 when it was started by an IP from Los Angeles who also made a few edits to Theta Xi and not only are the majority of editors IPs, there hasn't even been much change since 2005 which is another serious sign. Yet another interesting tidbit is that the article has never gotten Lousiana attention and is orphaned from any other articles. Pinging taggers Calamondin12 and Renata3 (also notifying past tagger Jesse V.). SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a hoax. In light of the article's claims, it's worrisome that this would have been able to evade scrutiny for so long. There is an authentic and prominent New Orleans jazz musician from this time period, John Robichaux, who has been listed as Jack Robichaux at least once in serious sources; this Harvard Magazine story describes the real Robichaux as "trained in the classical European conservatory style" and a contemporary of Buddy Bolden. But there is absolutely no evidence of the allegations mentioned in the article. The name "Robichaux" appears nowhere in Waldrep & Nieman's Local matters: Race, crime, and justice in the nineteenth-century South, so this is clearly a false reference. The article has also been extensively vandalized over the years. It's possible that the hoax originated as some sort of fraternity prank. Whatever the origin, it needs to go. At 10-plus years, this would be the longest-lived hoax on Wikipedia known so far. Calamondin12 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Nothing found on this person at all, and certainly nothing on the crimes he is alleged to have committed. ABF99 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no reliable info found. Renata (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt, SPEEDY DELETE. Zero reliable info, and appears that it is the longest lived hoax on Wikipedia. Racer-Ωmegα 08:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer above appears to be hoax could not find anything and could find anything in the source given.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Slootsky (doctor)

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

Non-notable person. Dr. Slootsky is a dentist of no particularly notable achievement (he is an adjunct faculty member at a local university who has published a few articles in dental journals) who participated in a charitable event ("Dentists Climb for a Cause") of no particular notability, who "made history" to become part of the first father/son team to participate in this not-particularly-notable charitable event. Local news grabbed hold of the local interest story, but nothing more. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A throughoughly unnotable dentist. Even if he had climed Mount Everest it would not make him notable, but Mount Ranier is just laughable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's element of notability from the references. I also think the article passes the wiki neutrality test.Rosemaryujoh (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Rosemaryujoh: Could you indicate which reference you think give an "element of notability"? I don't interpret them that way and I'd like to know what I'm missing. Also, what is the "wiki neutrality test"? There's no issue of neutrality mentioned in this discussion. Neutrality is not generally a reason for deleting an article: non-neutral articles can be improved, but articles about non-notable people can't because there just aren't the valid sources to draw on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Johnpacklambert. I don't see any shred of notability, even if every factoid could be verified and the article were re-written not to be a mere press release. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No plausible claim to notability. Agree with above that this is basically a local-interest story. Agricola44 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Mixed Martial Arts Association

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

MMA organization with no supported claims of notability. The only sources are from the organization itself.Mdtemp (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recent creation with nothing in the way of reliable third party sources to suggest notability. The article is a fork out of the Mixed martial arts article but not even sure it belongs there at least in its present state. It exists but not much more than that with no impact on the MMA world.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails to meet WP:GNG since it has no significant independent coverage. In fact, the article has no independent sources at all. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Fierro

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

Female karateka that meets none of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Her claims to notability appear to be her rank and hall of fame membership, neither of which is generally considered an indicator of notability in martial arts. The only coverage appears to be of those events. Contributing to Black Belt magazine does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete I tend to agree with the points made above. This source might be the most definitive one about Fierro, but it comes directly from the Isshinryu Hall of Fame. I don't know if that necessarily negates the source's "independent" standing, but it could. Some of the sources in the article DO mention her, I just don't think it's enough to establish WP:GNG or to meet WP:MANOTE. Gargleafg (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent sources. For martial artists high rank or membership in whatever hall of fame has never been an indicator of nobility.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the previous comments. She doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for martial artists and I don't believe the sources given are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Orangemike per CSD A7 (no credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua David Baird

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

Not notable per WP:Notability. No significant sources published about his work. Very clearly has not made a significant contribution to field of painting or art. Existing sources are self-published, or very minimal new references. Works in museum collections are in tiny municipal museums. Just not notable. New Media Theorist (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things: 1. previous AfD suggestion and Speedy delete attempt in edit history 2. Article also appears to have been initiated and heavily edited by Article's subject. "Little Hollywood Media" search points back to article subject. New Media Theorist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Without any WP:RS does not appear to meet notability guidelines as an artist of any kind.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable secondary sources found that could establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. ABF99 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Springfield Museum coverage is third-party and fairly in-depth and I'd guess a reliable source. But there's nothing else evident that meets the criteria that I can see, so I'm inclined to delete. Full disclosure: I was the admin who declined the speedy. There was far too much in the way of notability claims for a speedy, but an AfD was very much justified IMHO. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 28 August 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 herein is for article retention. Discussion about the article, a potential merge, etc. can continue on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark triad

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

This article is highly subjective, consists of a lot of original research and seems unencyclopedic. I would like to see a discussion about whether or not deletion or merge would be in order, because it seems to me like a whole lot of sources about actual, existing conditions (narcissism, psychopathy) are thrown together to create the illusion of an actual concept. Libercht (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Deleting this article is a ridiculous idea. There are plenty of academic studies where the "dark triad" is identified collectively eg as dark triadic traits: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q="Dark triad"&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CB4QgQMwAGoVChMIsY7-mK3JxwIVA0bbCh0QXgnO. Also books: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="Dark triad"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=ahHfVYqvLMa3Ubu6tMgK#q="Dark triad"&tbm=bks --Penbat (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My ideal would be a merge to personality disorder (or maybe narcissistic personality disorder). If you look at the DSM IV criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, you'll note that two of the three "dark triad" are present, and that psychopathy is linked with ASPD (which aligns with NPD in the cluster B spectrum. Looking at google scholar, there seem to be 2-3 principal researchers on this topic whose names come up over and over, and little in the way of secondary/independent/review articles. The overlap is large and dark triad and narcissism are almost always discussed together. Some of the dark triad article was OR padding (which I have removed but will no doubt creep back in over time) and much is covered elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes maybe this article does require some clean up, but https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q="Dark triad"&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CB4QgQMwAGoVChMIsY7-mK3JxwIVA0bbCh0QXgnO tells you of the veracity of the subject and it is not just 2 or 3 researchers. The poor state of an article is not in itself a reason to delete it. The idea of merging with personality disorder is a complete non-starter:

Machiavellianism not recognised as a PD
psychopathy not the same as ASPD
narcissism not necessarily NPD - it could just as easily refer to narcissism at the subclinical trait level.

--Penbat (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I didn't say only 1-2 researchers, papers are done with assistants, trainees etc, but there are a few names overlapping a helluvalot. (b) Machiavellianism is a trait, traits are not PDs as such. Instead it aligns with criterion 6 of NPD "Is inter-personally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends." pretty damn closely, I'd say. (c) psychopathy is not strictly synonymous with ASPD, but I was pointing out the overlap. (d) one is a trait of the other - well, the two haev a complex relationship. Really we should have fewer and broader articles where these entities can be presented in a holistic and spectrumy way rather than false subdivisions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, many researchers have found enough commonality between the 3 dark triad components to study them as a collective entity. It would be seriously confusing merging them with PDs which anyway are at the pathological level not the trait level. I personally dont see that dark triad correlates more strongly to narcissism than the other 2.--Penbat (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems to have WP OR (if OR removed I would be inclined to change my opinion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sounds like you just gave the article a cursory glance as it stands. Did you not look at Google Scholar ? The fact that an article contains OR (which is arguable) is not in itself a reason for deleting it.--Penbat (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non-expert comment) Keep if somebody can provide cleanup and WP:Stewardship. I have a hard time imagining that the many dozens of tightly focused sources at Google Scholar could be handled without a dedicated article. The problem, if I may be frank, is that (per Web searches) the term seems to have gained a lot of currency among Internet communities who are often problematic for Wikipedia: self-identified trolls, pickup artists, and so on. See http://metareddit.com/r/DarkTriad/. Consequently, the article needs some editors who understand psychology, and WP, well enough to keep everything under control. FourViolas (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, I concentrate on Wiki psychology articles and a sizable proportion (maybe 30%) are seriously inadequate and need beefing up. Yes this article does need work based on reliable sources from Google Scholar but there are many psychology articles in a worse state. Not too sure what your point is about junk like http://metareddit.com/r/DarkTriad. Obviously it would not be suitable as a reliable source. I would love WP:Stewardship for many psychology articles on Wikipedia but very few suitable people exist. I have tried to point Wikipedia psychology articles in the direction of academics with little success. I have put "expert help required" banners in psychology articles and nobody has responded years later. I'm happy to do what I can to beef this article up myself tho.--Penbat (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge per Casliber. The nom's apparent contention that the whole concept is OR or dubious seems just wrong. A merge might be best, but may not be a pressing need. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Penbat. My search also yields multiple reliable sources, such as European Journal of Personality, Review of General Psychology, Personality and Individual Differences. The article may benefit from some tweaks though. Brandmeister^talk 17:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Agree with Penbat. The Dark Triad as a named concept is more than 10 years old (e.g. see this article http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12018/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= ) and has been the subject of many independent studies. Furthermore, the concept is distinct from personality disorder, as it was developed to study personality variation in non-clinical populations. The claim by Cas Liber that the concept represents a "false subdivision" would appear to be his own opinion and therefore OR. The dark triad is a topic that academics have chosen to research in its own right. Of course it is related to other topics in psychology, but this does not mean individual editors should impose their own preferred categorisation schemes on existing topics that are recognised by experts in the field as worthy of distinct study. --Smcg8374 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- this article has at least 2 reliable sources and therefore is notable. Deletion is not a substitutef or suitable cleanup. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term appears to be treated by many academics as a discrete concept from personality disorder. In fact, it appears that some evolutionary psychologists don't even consider the traits to necessarily be a "personality disorder" since men and women with these traits have often been crisis survivors, risk takers, leaders, and change-makers throughout history, as well as more reproductively successful, which may account for the evidence in several academic studies that women often feel stronger sexual attraction to men who exhibit these traits. Anyway, per Penbat and Smcg, the sources support having this as a separate article. Cla68 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This one's clear enough to not need relisting. Could have gone through as a PROD, I imagine. Courcelles (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aljaž Anderle

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

This sits on the fence when it comes to notability. Since this page has been last edited, Aljaz could be considered notable by climbing an iceberg, which has been reported by the press on multiple occasions. Yet, there is a catch: the YouTube video which has been used by these news outlets is made for GoPro for publicity about 4K footage and not for the two men themselves. Most outlets also give a bigger mention to Klemen Premrl (along with the video) instead of Aljaž. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 16:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage and no claim to notability. If he had done the same sorts of things 100 years ago no one would bother even noticing. This is the type of article that leads to presentism in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Maria Wilson

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

Non notability Most people who claim to to a "model, businesswoman, actress, media and television personality" are apalling self-promoting nudniks, as is the case here imo. TheLongTone (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coupla clues. Pageviews in hundreds. Image consistency. Norwegian top model. Sources like this one. Meets the WP:GNG. More sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page view stats for a new page are misleading. And the source you give looks trivial in the extreme: are any of the other 11 (!) google hits more convinvingTheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources here and here. She modeled for Playboy. She was in a TV series Lilyhammer starring with Steven van Zandt (see here.) It was big news when she was personally attacked. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. Article revamped as per WP:HEYMANN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Closing admin please note the article has been subject to much agenda-pushing in its brief life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since learned Wilson did not pose for Playboy, only turned down an offer, supposedly. Changing to Weak keep partially as a result; plus looks like this article (if it stays) may quickly turn into an advertisement, based on the past contribution history.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, she did not pose for Playboy. And the source here does not indicate she was given an offer. Rather contrary, she said: "I have not posed nude before, but for Playboy I would have done it 110 percent [for sure]." -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has also showed up on the Norwegian Wikipedia (I think it was there first), and it has been nominated for deletion there too.[9] It appeares to have been made by the same user.--Telaneo (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted on Norwegian Wikipedia.--Telaneo (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has no bearing here, the argument is a reversed WP:OTHERLANGS. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per WP:GNG and sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Certainly not much substance in subject's career, but the sources to support GNG are there. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Water (data page)

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

Are data sheets within the remit of an encyclopedia? This page, and others like it, contains detailed chemical data which is too large to fit in the parent article. To me, this violates WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", specifically, the excessive listings of statistics. I would not object to moving these data somewhere outside of article space, and I suggested such a move in 2012 which met with little interest from the editors at WikiProject Chemicals. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Chemical data pages. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the issue is that the Chembox can become massive. To keep the size manageable on the main article page, data pages were conceived as a solution. If we delete this chemical data page there will be many other data pages to delete as well under this reasoning (e.g. Caffeine (data page), Ethanol (data page)). Sizeofint (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there not external collections of these data that you could link to? I know for proteins, there are plenty of databases for this kind of thing. Are these data really essential to understanding the main article? I realize that more pages will need to be deleted if my argument is valid, I'm treating this as a kind of test case, if this ends as a snow keep, I won't nominate the rest. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't remember now where the last discussion about these happened, but IIRC the result was to wait till wikidata can handle input with units and then move the information there, no? So the existing data pages should continue to exist as-is till the infrastructure and motivation exist for a migration, unless a particular data page contains unfixable errors or needs deletion for some other reason. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A move outside article space, such as Talk:Water/Data would allow transfer of the information while being in compliance with WP:NOT. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 08:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found this discussion from 2014, I don't think this is the one you are thinking of, as there is no mention of wikidata. I looked in archives from the chemistry and chemicals wikiprojects as well as AfD, is there anywhere else the discussion could have been? Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely thinking of a 2015 conversation, but I can't remember where it occurred. Possibly on the talk page of an article with a data page. In any case, I agree with what I posted, or possibly only intended to post, in the conversation I can't find :) Most of these have have existed unproblematically since 2005-6, there's a more accessible solution arriving in the near future, compliance with some WP:TLA for compliance's sake is a waste of effort. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is not just some TLA, it is among the most important content policies we have, I see no need to ignore it here. If there is a prospect of the data being transferred, move it to a talk subpage. I don't see why that option isn't a win-win, you get to keep the data for future transfer, we all get to keep non-encyclopedic pages outside article space. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not indiscriminate. It's on its own page only for technical reasons. And we exclude 'indiscriminate collections of information' for good reasons that don't apply here. This argument sounds like trying to enforce a rule for enforcement's sake, never mind whether it actually applies or matters. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think WP:NOT does not apply, where are the context with explanations that that policy says should accompany data? This page is really no different from a page listing statistics about a sportsperson, one could argue keep for much the same reasons as editors are arguing here, yet these pages are routinely deleted by prod or afd. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 07:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." The article linked has basically the same amount of explanation as the page in question. shoy (reactions) 12:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of points about that. The data in the article you linked is all of the same kind, they are all opinion polls for the same election, a single explanation is sufficient. In this article, there are at least 15 different kinds of data. The lay reader does not need an explanation about what an opinion poll is. The lay reader certainly does need an explanation about what self ionization etc. is. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quasihuman, if you don't see any difference in encyclopedic value between the fundamental properties of common substances and sports statistics, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move outside content space is not an answer. (This was discussed for Redirects for completely other reasons. See [[10]] RfD archive). -DePiep (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am not convinced that deletion is OK for reason of WP:NOT. WP:DISCRIMINATE gives a nice background for this argument (concluding into 'keep' here, IMO). The data is quite structured. And this being water, such lots of data may be relevant. With this, I think the data is encyclopedic (while one could consider improvement of the page). Now for practical reasons, mostly web-originated, the data is not added to the main article. That is, we have not found a sound way to manage such a big page by web means. We could use improvements in this (i.e., high end webpage design guidelines). -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I strongly disagree that this page is encyclopedic, the data might be encyclopedic if it was accompanied by prose discussing it and the context for it as part of an article. We have to accept that not all information about a subject can fit within its article, the solution to this is not to create a dump for such data. No other subject area does this.

WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE says : "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." There are no explanations or context here, the only prose is explaining units and a few sentences at the lead. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sub-page. Why would that require being "accompanied by prose"? (now this is what I would call an indiscriminate requirement, btw). We do not require "accompanying prose" for an infobox either. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is what our policy at WP:NOT says, "context with explanations" implies prose. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if we merge (paste) this page into Water, which has the prose, that would be OK? -DePiep (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Water actually has prose explaining these data, yes. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quasihuman, OK, this is closing in. Now, the infobox at water has over 40 data entries (data rows). Only few of these are mentioned in the prose (and of course there is the wikilink in the lefthand word, which is canceled out for imo obvious reasons). The testing question is: Would you claim the dozens of not-mentioned data rows are non-encyclopedic too and should be removed? (or, a different approach, what about if we move the "triple point" from the data page to the infobox?). -DePiep (talk)

Are you talking about Properties of water? Water doesn't have an infobox. There are going to be non explained items in most infoboxes, most of these will be self-explanatory, we don't need to explain melting and boiling points because the lay reader would be expected to understand what those mean. The triple point is explained in Properties of water, I would have no problem moving that data there. Ideally, items that are not self-explanatory to the layman should have explanations in the text. If that is not the case, I would not immediately delete that data. I don't really have a problem with a couple of unexplained items inside an infobox if editors think the information is important, in that case, a link to an article discussing, for example, Magnetic susceptibility is probably sufficient. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Are you talking about [[Properties of water]]"? - Yes I do. One of my core questions is: how or why would is matter when a data fact is in page '.. (data page)' or in the main page? You seem to discard the whole page while not addressing the individual data-points. (very bad). -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I for one regularly look up material properties from the infoboxes on wikipedia pages and I think it's obvious that an article discussing a material or chemical compound should list the most important material properties of that compound. Water is a special case, since its material properties are known and used in so much more detail that they wouldn't fit on an infobox. I have always thought that this data-page construct was a good way to deal with the massive amount of available material properties. At least, I have used this page many times over the years. Han-Kwang (t) 20:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this collection is certainly no indiscriminate. There is potential to turn it into a more text like form and make it physical properties of water. Information from this is of interest to meteorologists, planetologists, steam engine builders, oceanographers and many others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Don't usually close on one !vote but consensus is always to Keep Unis, Institutes, Colleges etc etc so no point dragging this on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Sastha Institute of Engineering and Technology

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

Delete: as non-notable educational institution. No notable alumni. Copied and pasted from webpage. Quis separabit? 14:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an accredited degree-awarding college per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laleh Eskandari

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. News produced a few very trivial mentions. Newspapers and Scholar produced zero. Highbeam had 2 of the same trivial cites as news, and JStor returned zero. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable actress. Fails WP:GNG also. Quis separabit? 14:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as unless there simy happens to be better coverage in Iranian, my first searches instantly found nothing good with this seeming to be the best results. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Fresh

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

Unfortunately I was unable to find enough reliable coverage for this clothing brand. A search revealed mostly false positives, with the only hits of note being a partnership with DJ Lady Duracell (who herself does not have a Wikipedia entry). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although DJ Lady Duracell does not have a Wikipedia entry at the moment, she is frequently top 10 in the podomatic deep house music charts, and has many sources to prove that she is a well known DJ. Her official website and social media networks also have consistent updates supporting the Jack Fresh brand regularly.Yas at NewMatter (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's reason. The page had been speedy deleted once as promotional(which I nominated) as there seemed to be few sources(as the nominator found themselves). There seems to be little that is remarkable about this. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When DJ Lady Duracell started using the term Jack Fresh, I wanted to know more, if you are unaware; she was voted 57th best DJ in the world and 15th best DJ in the UK by SheJay magazine. She has also had music in the HMV music store, and is regularly top 10 in the podomatic charts.

When she started saying Jack Fresh a few months ago, I and others wanted to know what she meant; after doing research, I decide to create a Wikipedia page.

Yes, the previous page created was deleted for not following guidelines, the page was not created from a natural point of view, and had too many links, I did not dispute the fact, or the reason for the deletion. Instead I took a look at the guidelines, striped the page of its links that were considered promotional, and have produced this new article.

Now that I am dedicated to the maintenance of this page, and will work on a DJ Lady Duracell page soon, I would prefer you guide me in the right direction, so, I don’t waste any more of your time.

At the moment the only problem seems to be not enough sources, however, the sources I have given can be viewed by the public, and I will edit the page to provide better links or more links within the next few days, all information is verifiable via DJ Lady Duracell, & via the brands official website, other independent sources have also spoken about this clothing brand. Yas at NewMatter (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing good either. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion began:

The DJ Lady Duracell Wikipedia has been created & links back to Jack Fresh
The Jack Fresh page is no longer an orphan page
The Category section of Jack Fresh is filled
The Infobox has been recreated
The trading name Reference has been replaced

This page should remain open Yas at NewMatter (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find absolutely nothing to establish notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asam vinay kumar

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

WP:BIO WP:RS Some hits for school record holder as a fast typist. Mostly youtube and flickr hits though. Savonneux (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is written like a story. Topic does not look notable--OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 12:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no reliable sources to confirm any of this. I am confident I would have found confirmation if, as claimed in the article, he were featured in the Guinness Book Of Records, which encourages me to believe the article may well be a hoax. Hoax or not, there is no evidence of notability, and in my opinion it is sufficiently promotional to be at least borderline for speedy deletion for that reason. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source I could find that was not obviously self-published was Record Holders Republic. I can't vouch for its reliability, but regardless... not enough to pass WP:BIO. --Drm310 (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing aside from self-generated content such as social media and YouTube. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Turn the Stone

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and deprodded. Richhoncho (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though article creator says it's a "good song", no coverage found to satisfy WP:NSONG. --SubSeven (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or alternatively merge to album article Something's Going On. I have added one book source, but we are not close to WP:NSONG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Knights (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

How the fuck is this article still on here? This just went through a successful deletion discussion in 2011, right? The notablity and verfiability issues that were mentioned in the first discussion still stand. I found no reliable sources in either a google news, google books or a regular google search, only non-notable blog sources, including the one listed in the reference section of this article. 和DITOR E tails 09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There looks to be at least three already known bands called 'Neon Knights', two of them tribute U.S. hard rock bands and one of them a 90s-era European metal group, and this electronic outfit is obscure to say the least. They don't even have a full album to their name. Non-notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Northamerica1000. Searches showed nothing notable about this particular group. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Muszynski

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR. This is written in the style of a marketing/PR blurb, and sourced exclusively to his books' buy-me profiles on commercial book sales platforms — invalid primary sources that cannot confer notability on a writer — with not a shred of reliable source coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability requirements for people: just a person doing his job. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attempt is made to comply with notability. Sources are self-published. Jcmcc (Talk) 01:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gray (American politician)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Someone could very well be virtually unknown for anything except as being a political candidate and still be notable, ask Vermin Supreme, Deez Nuts, and Gloria La Riva among many others. Anyways, candidate Gray seems to have gotten reliable source coverage even if his article right now needs work (covered by the likes of NPR and the Mississippi Business Journal among others). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of those were candidates for President of the United States, and thus inhabit a completely different universe of sourceability than an unelected candidate for a state-level office — and both Vermin Supreme and La Riva do contain some evidence of notability for something besides their candidacy itself. Deez Nuts not so much, I admit — I still maintain that people in that AFD confused temporary newsiness with enduring notability. But candidates don't automatically get a notability freebie just for being candidates — they don't get WP:GNG unless the coverage nationalizes in a sustained and substantive way. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia policy seems to be that losing major-party gubernatorial candidates (I guess I'm technically jumping the gun declaring him the loser) are notable enough to be included. You see that across many states, and in Mississippi, every single losing candidate who got a major party nomination for governor is included, even ones that never held another high office: Johnny DuPree, John Arthur Eaves, Dick Molpus, Jack Reed, Leon Bramlett, Gil Carmichael, Rubel Phillips. Jhn31 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. If this were a congressional or local office, I'd go for deletion, but this is a candidate for Governor on one of the two major party lines. He has only a small chance of winning, but who knows? Bearian (talk) 15:50, 31 August 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. Not a very good article, but that can be corrected by fastidious editing. As argued by several editors, the citation counts indicate a clear meet of PROF#1. Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahinda Vilathgamuwa

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

The subject is a just a professor at a university. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:GNG. A series of general references provided which mention the subject in passing but do not establish notability . Dan arndt (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This professor fails WP:GNG by a mile. --Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^{i've made a huge mess} 05:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check GS? I'm afraid you've got it exactly backwards. Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. High citation counts in his Google scholar profile show a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst there maybe high citation counts in his Google scholar profile - none of that is demonstrated or attributed to in the article. Criteria one specifically states "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The article does no provide any independent reliable sources showing that the subjects research has had any significant impact. Dan arndt (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are independent proof. You are describing a shortcoming of the article. The subject is conspicuously notable (see more below). Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete We don't need an article on every professor Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. David has already pointed-out the notability via highly-cited works, the very heart of WP:PROF c1. The GS citation list is: 469, 446, 311, 219, 219, 217, 210...for an h-index of 39. Of course, notability of an individual is independent of whether a WP article describing the individual does an adequate job of documenting this aspect. Seems that the shortcoming is in the article, not the individual. This article is certain to be kept, as the proof is conclusive. Might be good form for the nom to withdraw AfD to save other eds' valuable time. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing notability, I'm not seeing sources and I'm not even seeing a convincing argument based on citations. If there was more content here explaining why his work was significant, I might be swayed. As it it though, three papers with over 300 cites is worthy of further study, might build into something that looks like an article, but it's not alone a pass for "Google says notable, therefore notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to belabor the point (since the article is certain to be kept), but it is worth explaining a subtlety that seems to be lost here. It is not "Google says notable". Rather, Google is the documentation of over 4,000 independent citations and it is the latter that says "notable". It is also worth noting that this level of impact far surpasses the rough threshold that has been established over hundreds of AfDs over the past several years. Finally, AfD is not touch-up. All we are debating here is the notability of the subject, who is notable whether the article says so or not. We should direct our collective energies into expanding the article, because it's a done-deal that the article will be retained. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

4000 citations is pretty standard fare for a full time academic. I've just run my Facebook friends list through Gooogle scholar and they split into <50 (non academics and graduates) and 4,000-8,000 for those who do publish. I'm at 200 myself and I haven't published anything for 10 years. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4,000 citations is not at all standard. The vast majority of published papers have very low (<10 citations), e.g. about half published since 1900 have never been cited. Because most academics do not publish more than 1 paper a year, citations for an average prof are pretty low. Through hundreds of AfDs, we've arrived at several rough thresholds for assess academics' notability by the impact of their work (WP:PROF criterion 1) and Vilathgamuwa far exceeds all of them, e.g. his h-index of 39 is far above the average academic value of 10 to 15, total citations of 4,000 far above the average of a few hundred, etc. Perhaps you should consider creating articles for those high-citation friends of yours. ;-) Agricola44 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I wouldn't wish outing via WP on anyone.

Professors gain a boosted citation count because they're listed on a lot of papers they had a "supervisory" role in, also because politics often encourage political citation of a nearby academic's work. For judging notability, I'd be wary to count papers with fewer than 200 citations to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that substantial gratuitous authorship or courtesy citation have occurred in this particular case, then please throw off the veil and lay out the evidence. It could change the opinion of the "keeps" (it certainly has done so in many past AfDs with which I'm familiar.) Conversely, if you're speaking in general terms, then I would agree that both these things happen, but would submit that they are irrelevant to this case. PS: I'm sorry that you see creating a new article on a notable person as "outing" them. I guess there'd be no bios if we all had that frame of mind. Agricola44 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACADEMICS ~~# 3, according to this he is a senior member of IEEE which is cited as an example at this criterion, the citation count corroborates that~~ # 1 he is a widely cited expert in his field Kraxler (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Amended, see below. Kraxler (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kraxler: - criteria #3 states the subject is a 'fellow' of a a major scholarly society, which is significantly different from being a member or senior member of the same institute. On the basis it clearly fails criteria #3 - It may satisfy criteria #1 but am awaiting the outcome of the preceding discussion. Dan arndt (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, he is a "senior member", one grade below "fellow". I amended ny rationale. Kraxler (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - standard searching shows a very good case that Mr. Vilathgamuwa meets WP:PROF#C1 via highly cited academic works. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 13:14, 27 August 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. Overall consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Keyes

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multi-AVN award-nominated, 14 nominations to awards, 9x interwiki. Generally, notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out before repeatedly that porn award nominations don't establish notability per consensus guidelines. Neither does the presence in other language wikis. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO/BIO in intro say " It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" - for me (in the form of generally), this person are notable: too many nominations to awards (no only two or three), many interwiki, well known etc etc. Gene93k, other users may vote differently than you, you may not agree or do not like arguments by other users but please stop trolling posts by other users. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just give up on porn AFD's Subtropical it's not worth the time. She may have 14 nominations of the top two awards in her profession but it's porn so it is not taken seriously. It's obvious the mainstream media won't report on them and since their own magazines don't count (they're "promotional") and they are typically the only ones to report on them probably less then 75 porn people would qualify under these requirements, and they will probably get stricter too.

One Direction members don't even qualify for wiki. Play 5 minutes of a pro sports match and you're in though (Which funnily enough made Louis Tomlinson qualify.). We will only have actors who win the Academy Award for Best Actor next. How about this guy, Joseph Kszyczewiski?. Since porn is sex which everyone does, it make it seem like it's top awards are a joke (even though they mainly base it off work ethic/how much got done in the year plus who get's the most attention), that's why stuff like internet memes/youtubers/reality stars/beauty pageants/porn/criminals/death metal/pro gaming/diplomats/soap operas (occupations with negative reputations) things that working class/women/teenagers are normally fans of or are seen as repugnant (criminals) have a harder time qualifying.

One Direction is another example, it has a primarily teenage girl fanbase so it's members (only two now do) fail WP:Band even though they are the biggest band in the world for the last 3 years. But if you play bass in a 80s rock band for one year before they got gigantic you're in. Anything that does not apply to High culture is generally not respected by editor's on here. Something like Billboard (magazine) is accepted as a reliable source as pop music has a favorable view but since porn is seen negatively (morally wrong) AVN (magazine) is seen as unreliable/promotional, it has higher standards. I've done a test on this and have viewed about 10, 000 biographies which i have a list of and the majority of people in occupations which are negatively seen are nominated for deletion/merged/re-directed. It's unfair on occupations to rely on New York Times/Forbes etc for interviews, that's why we rely on trade magazines who normally report on the top people in their field. In this case AVN does not generally report on people who have shot 5 amateur scenes in their basement. Name me a field where if you get 14 nominations in the top two awards (Like the academy/golden globes) of your industry you do not qualify for an article.

Here's an example Maddy O'Reilly has gotten more media attention then Rebecca Morris or Guy Cook but who do you think will have a harder/stricter time passing and which is most likely to be nominated for deletion? Oh well, porn stars are just some T&A apparently ;). Hell even the Corey Worthington debates proved this, if it was a acadamic who got that level of attention for the exact same thing it would have stayed and that one event guideline would have not been brought up.

As a closing statement checkout this [[11]] a youtube star which as a career is seen as a much more deserving occupation then pornography and a person who has the same-ish small coverage as London Keyes (one article in the guardian would not qualify London for some people) , yet big difference in some people's word's. This guy is the same [[12]] hugely repugnant occupation but certainly should have an entry as it was major news on 3 continents, but look at some of the opposition, fortunately people came to their senses but it proves that a small bias is in all of us. Food for thought. GuzzyG (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the notability guidelines. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think your Subtropical Man under another account ? .... Wonder what brings me too that conclusion!. –Davey2010^Talk 08:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

are you accusing me to create sockpuppet? or I misunderstood your post. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my post. –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, multiple nominations for porn awards is a deprecated criteria of WP:PORNBIO, thus cannot be used to meet the project's notability threshold. Subtropical Man's vote can be ignored as it runs counter to established community norms on notability and inclusion criteria, as can "Hillary Scott`love"'s as "keep it's notable" is a a wrong argument to make in an deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Award nominations alone are not enough to pass PORNBIO per my comments above. Not finding significant RS coverage to pass GNG. Porn trade press coverage is mainly republished press releases. Even if you count the XBIZ "L for London" coverage cited in the article as reliable, it's not enough by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Tarc & Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability under the amended PORNBIO guideline, alas, clean-up after changed consensus is necessary Kraxler (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's spot-on analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Kleevage

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to the article about the The Heartbreak Film. only mentions in few sources found in a google news search, and a google search didn't find anything either. 和DITOR E tails 09:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding enough for GNG or PORNBIO, just a lot of passing mentions and a single mainstream film appearance. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although her page doesn't mention it, she has been inducted into Bill Margold's Legends of Erotica. 1 I don't know if it is considered one of the notable awards or not, but just throwing it out there. It has been going on for 20 years and gotten industry and some mainstream coverage. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate assessment. And "Legends of Erotica" is neither well-known, significant, nor an industry award/hall of fame; instead, it's a publicity gimmick for a single video porn vendor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable porn actress; fails GNG, ENT. Quis separabit? 17:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sammie Rhodes

AfDs for this article:

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

acene awards no longer count so fails PORNBIO. There is an interview but that is a primary source and therefore fails GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this performer pass PORNBIO? She has lots of scene-related nominations, a scene-related win and 2 individual nominations. No individual-based award wins. Also, how does she pass GNG? Where is the non-trivial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources? An interview does not count. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010:, have you been hacked? What is there in this article to suggect that the subject meets either notability criteria? Tarc (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope afraid not lol, Work it out - When these PORNBIOs come up and I !vote Keep on one or two- What do I !vote Keep based on ? (and no not PB or GNG). –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well when you say as passes PORNBIO & GNG, one kinda assumes that that is your actual rationale. I'm going to Facepalm if you're WP:HOTTIE-voting again... Tarc (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see when you see my !votes on Pornbios you literally have to think outside the box , Actually I'm not sure why I never stated it above like I always do!, I know it's extremely sad!, I cam only hope one day my Hottie-Keep !votes won't be disregarded. –Davey2010^Talk 17:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes PORNBIO & GNG. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes PORNBIO & GNG. --Hillary Scott`love (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So far, just vague handwaves at policy without explaining why or how the suvect allaegedly meets them. Arguments to avoid. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not, in fact, meet either the notability guide or WP:PORNBIO. Multiple nominations plus a scene-related award do not count, as pornbio quite clearly states....one does not make an apple into a banana by simply painting it yellow. Next, the sources for the subject are largely porn industry news and press releases, e.g. announcements of roles and of nominations. The one possibility is the interview in something called the "Beverly Hills Outlook", but whatever this is...tabloid, local news, or whatnot I have thus been unable to discover, as it no longer exists. If we give it the benefit of the doubt, then that is just one reliable source, whereas the project's notability threshold is in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Even if you count the porn trade press as reliable, this performer comes up short on GNG with coverage coming from one source (AVN). • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with no award wins. No reliable sources to indicate she passes GNG. Finnegas (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per Tarc. No indication that the "Beverly Hills Outlook" wasn't a selfr-published webzine that fails RS by a country light-year or two. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Vicious

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She fails the criteria as far as I can tell. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual claims of notability, little or no nontrivial reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Travis

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

FAILS PORNBIO and GNG and 15 minutes on american idol does not yet make you automatically notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with no award wins. No significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate he passes GNG. Finnegas (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another dubious BLP bereft of reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacklyn Lick

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:PORNBIO #3. She has appeared in the notable mainstream films Orgazmo, The Big Lebowski, Bikini Planet (film), and Homo Erectus (film). --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The level of dialogue in these discussions is devolving. If people could elaborate on their reasoning, it would be helpful. @Subtropical-man: Merely voting "keep per above" is frowned upon. @Davey2010: You seem to have been copy/pasting "Delete as per nom - fails PORNBIO & GNG" into every pornstar AfD brought up by this nominator, making it seem like you are playing WP:WHACKAMOLE. Can you explain why you feel this person fails PORNBIO? Specifically why her many mainstream film appearances, a few of which I mentioned in my vote above, do not meet criterion 3 of PORNBIO, as I claimed they do? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to come up with a different !vote for each AFD am I ? ... If they pass or fail whatever guideline then I'll obviously state that, As for the Pornbio - She seems to have been a minor character one film and the rest all are IMHO non-notable so I believe she fails PORNBIO. –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know that she actually appeared in the The Big Lebowski. Also, PORNBIO mentions that one has to have "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media"...uncredited roles really aren't being "featured" at all. Guy1890 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reliable sources do not cover the subject in any fashion. "Sammy1339"'s assertion that the subject meets pornbio criteria #3 is easily refuted; between appearances in "Nasty Girls Masturbating 8" and "Blowjob Adventures of Dr. Fellatio 7", Ms. Lick's appearances in "notable mainstream films" are minor minor characters, background roles and uncredited appearances. Orgazmo is "Special Appearance", "Bikini Planet" (a non-notable softcore film which I will be nominating for AfD shortly, unless sources are found to support it) is 14th billing, the Big Lebowski" was unsupported and has been removed from the article, and finally "Homo Erectus" list her as Amazon Woman (uncredited). This debunking renders Subtropical Man's "per Sammy" vote null & void as well. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the article, you'll find she has many appearances in film and television, too many to bother listing here. It can be argued that uncredited appearances don't qualify, but even without those (The Big Lebowski and 8MM), she passes criterion 3 by a mile. I also don't know why you listed a couple pornographic titles that have no relevance here. That seems like a straw man. (Also, Bikini Planet is a parody of softcore movies, not a porno itself.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason that you continue to distort and misrepresent the subject's film roles, i.e. pumping them up beyond what they actually are? Do you think other editors here are too dumb or in too much of a hurry to go check for themselves? The handful of non-pornographic roles that this person has had are bit parts or uncredited appearances. When WP:PORNBIO criteria #3 states, "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", are you familiar with the definition of the word "featured"do you know what that means ? It does not mean 14th billing. It does not mean uncredited cameos. It means the the person was credited as part of the main cast, that she had a prominent role in the film. This person has never been the featured actress in a notable, non-porno film. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, please be aware that civility, while rare, is required. Your comments, here and elsewhere, are nearly always hostile or derogatory. As for the subject matter, you are discounting her many television appearances. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that you are misrepresenting sources is not an uncivil act; if you do not wish to be called out for making bad arguments, then it would behoove you to, y'know, stop making bad arguments. The subject's tv appearances consist of one softcore porn film and several bit parts in softcore porn shows. So please, show us the reliable sources that cover Ms. Lick for these roles. All ears. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only bit-part mainstream appearances. Tarc is right. Appeared in (uncredited, Naked woman 2, 14th billed, etc.) does not reach the "featured in" criterion in PORNBIO. Fails GNG without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Tarc's argument above. Finnegas (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PORNBIO3 is not satisfied by mere credits; "featured" indicates nontrivial roles are required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. copyvio from their web site and pure advocacy. They're possibly notable, if someone wants to do a proper article. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Federation of Medical Students

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

The article's first sentence would suggest notability, and although I'm not entirely familiar with medical organizations or the medical field in general, my searches found nothing to suggest improvement here, here, here, here, here and here. I hope we can get some insight to this sparsely edited article from October 2007. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 27 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Multimedia

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

Recreated article, deleted few months ago through PROD. Concern remains the same: "he 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." Setting aside the dubious notability of their games, the company has no notability itself - no dedicated, reliable sources focus on it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Doesn't inherit notability from its children. Apart from the NWR interview, it had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd entertain a redirect, but it's not clear whether it should go to one of its games or somewhere else. A navbox for the dev would be more functional than this article. If someone finds more (non-English and offline, esp. Polish) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 02:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editor. Searches returned nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin Buttram

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

My searches found nothing to suggest independent notability with the best results here (not much help aside from some journals) and there's no target for moving elsewhere and not to mention this has stayed since February 2005 with no future signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only incidental hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 02:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editor. Searches revealed nothing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Chinese Patent Attorney Association

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

Non-notable organization. Fails WP:ORG. Creator declined PROD. GregJackP Boomer! 04:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with the aforementioned nomination. I did a quick check of the sources cited in this article, and it doesn't look like they meet WP:ORGDEPTH. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability requirement. Created by SPA. -CerealKillerYum (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. This does not appear to be a legally recognized bar association, and was founded only last year. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator replied to the earlier PROD here, pointing to a flyer "http://www.ipd.gov.hk/chi/promotion_edu/20150818/FHKI_Flyer.pdf". Google Translate helped me to guess that this is an educational flyer. The Hong Kong China Patent Agents (Attorney) Association (ACPAA-HKMA) is apparently sponsoring a course. This however is insufficient to meet WP:ORG. --Edcolins (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To all above: EDcollins proposed deletion due to the asso as being "non-notable." The opposite is true. See e.g. the link: http://big5.sipo.gov.cn:8081/dtxx/gn/2015/201507/t20150729_1151839.html or http://www.gdipo.gov.cn/shared/news_content.aspx?news_id=11542 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patentbot (talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the link you will see that ACPAA HKMA together with HKIPD (of HKSAR goovernment) had a conference with The IP Bureau of GuangDong province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patentbot (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the links show that the organization exists, not that it meets notability requirements. GregJackP Boomer! 18:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Shillinde

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

This footballer has an interesting history because that history is a complete fantasy (read the amusing detail here). The hoax is not notable enough and since there's no sign that Shillinde ever played for a national side or a fully professional league, the article also fails the requirements of WP:NFOOTY. Pichpich (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Pichpich, although it did provide me with a chuckle. Spiderone 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or for his country's national team, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Boyer Binns

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

Easily PRODable (but I wanted comments) author and my searches found nothing good aside from results for her book. The history suggests it was started by Tristan herself in December of 2006 (and I'm not sure who the 3 anons from January 2012 are, they seem to add personal info but their other edits are completely different) but the autobio doesn't concern me as much as the non-existent sources and no significant edits since then. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has written some books (see [13], page 1 of 4) but this does not automatically confer notability. Quis separabit? 23:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she has written books about hermit crabs![14] and guinea pigs![15] and potbellied pigs![16] "coolabahapple, sure they're cute but that doesn't make Boyer Binns notable." "yes i know, i'm getting to that!" meets WP:GNG, has numerous(40 ) book reviews with Horn Book Guide and School Library Journal (SLJ) [17] (sorry, i don't have access, hopefully a helpful editor can oblige?). i have found these SLJ reviews as a start- [18], [19], [20] Her books also appear in numerous school/library reading lists and study guides: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] so are part of the school curriculum. Not sure why the article has languished for so long although the child lit project does have over 5000 stubby articles(don't get me started on those individual Nancy Drew and Hardy boys articles ...), a lot of which were created many years ago, so if any editor is able to assist they are more than welcome Coolabahapple (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of books [30], but I cannot replicate User:Coolabahapple findings. My search on Horn Book turned up nothing [31]. User:Coolabahapple first link, from the the highly reputable School Library Journal is deeply unpersuasive [32]. Binns appears to be in a category of writers of children's books who crank out non-fiction titles to meet a demand from school libraries for "new" books that regurgitate old material about popular grade school assignment topics, like early women doctors, and the White House. And she appears in online lists of such books. If someone can find reviews of her work, flag me. But I'm seeing no notability here. And found none in my searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and E.M.Gregory (btw, formatted your comment, hope you don't mind). My searches could find nothing to suggest the notability of this author. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nithyashree Venkataramanan (singer)

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

The URL's used within the article are fully bare URL's. No significance found for this article. Josu4u (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Indian Idol Junior (season 2) as it's obviously what she is best known for so far with the best results of my searches here (News). SwisterTwister talk 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very poorly written-up AfD. However, having looked at the sources (those that do mention her) it is clear that this should be deleted--minor singer (haha, literally) who did a few minor things. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Glass (adult model)

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

One source does not an article make and otherwise fails PORNBIO and GNG. The medical article is about the treatment not her, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plus these sources to pass the GNG. [33][34][35][36] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 - Tabloid and an interview so primary 2 mmmm maybe but looks primary, 3, not in depth, 4 not in depth. Doesn't quite do it for me by I accept milage may vary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to have been a minor celebrity at a certain time, and later when suffering from cancer became the subject of tabloid journalism. Certainly fails PORNBIO, also fails GNG because of WP:ROUTINE and WP:SENSATION which say that tabloid journalism doesn't add up to notability. I just can't see anything else than run-of-the-mill here: poor girl gets some odd job, discovers she looks good, makes money dancing on the table, appears in men's magazines, drifts into porn, and dies of cancer while the salivating crowd is looking on, yawn... Kraxler (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability requirements of pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad-Johnson

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

Article came to my attention when its existence was used as justification to keep the Milbert Amplifiers article in the ongoing AfD. Since the last AfD in 2006 for Conrad-Johnson, things have moved on a lot and articles about companies need to meet WP:NCORP criteria (i.e. to show they;ve at least been noticed beyond very niche industry publications). As it stands at the moment the Conrad-Johnson article invites speedy deletion, with no suggestion of notability. Unless someone can suggest a compelling reason why the company is important, I'd say it's time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh my. And this has been relisted? Promotional, Yellow Pages, WP:NCORP-failing substub. Burn. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion was relisted because it is preferable for a consensus to be formed to qualify article deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 27 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azai Inori

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

Granted sources may not be easily accessible but my thoughtful searches found nothing and there are none listed at Japanese Wiki thus for an orphaned article from February 2006 with hardly any significant edits, the time for attention is now. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's in the Japanese WP, and I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. That I cannot find anything under the name is not necessarily relevant, and I am not able to search in Japanese. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If no sources can be provided to demonstrate that this person even existed, then it should be wiped from Wikipedia. The existence of a similar article on Japanese Wikipedia is definitely not a valid reason for keeping this article, especially when that article too is completely unsourced. (See WP:OTHERLANGS.) --DAJF (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Japanese article lacks sources, borders on a stub and contains only a handful of edits despite existing since 2006, meaning its gotten very little attention from the Japanese Wikipedia community. I'm unable to find sources for this person, and I'm not willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt when the Japanese article contains so many red flags. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is my understanding that each wiki has its own standards regarding notability, this one fails our guidelines. The Japanese article is unsourced as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion With Dates

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

Delete. Most of the sources cited are either self-published or does not have sufficient mention of this "reality show". Moreover, where was this show aired? Blatant advertising. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising spam.--Savonneux (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addie Wagenknecht

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

not notable per Wikipedia:Notability. Has not made a significant contribution to the field that merits an article; page is mostly self-promotion and seems to have many edits by the article's subject. New Media Theorist (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete for now unless this can be improved as my searches found nothing better than this, this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability requirements for either academics or artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss World editions

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

unsourced fancruft The Banner talk 08:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meritless autopilot nomination just as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miss Universe editions. This is nothing but an index list of the individual pageants, all of which have articles, with annotations for dates, venues, and the number of competitors. Really basic facts, not "fancruft". postdlf (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I love your bad faith about this nomination that sounds rather pointy. Perhaps I should not have named it fancruft but WP:LISTCRUFT. The Banner talk 09:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can only judge your nomination on what you've written, which is not much at all here, and nothing that actually shows consideration of this list's specific content. You've nominated a whole host of pageant related articles recently, many of which have merited deletion because the pageants themselves are not notable or the information is trivial. But this one is easily distinguishable as I have explained. And no, swapping "listcruft" for "fancruft" would not make your nomination any more substantive or less of a WP:VAGUEWAVE. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a well-defined, useful list of a manageable size, notable subject, all entries are blue-linked, and pertinent information is presented, passes WP:SALAT Kraxler (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The pageant itself is notable and this list is just giving details. WP:I don't like it very much. I'd rather see it put at the bottom of Miss World than have its own page. But deletion does not seem justified by any WP policy. Borock (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basic index of the pageant's editions, and no true reason presented for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 06:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Mohr

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

not notable broadcast meteorologist. routing career. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References currently in article as of August 13 2015 clearly meet notability requirements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rundown of the references: 1. Ad Week (independent, non-trivial); 2. WXIA via USA Today (from the subject's employer); 3. CNN/HLN (the subject's then employer); 4. SFGate (independent but passing mention); 5. WXIA (same article at reference #1 #2). There's not enough here yet to pass GNG. A search for more sources show mentions of (possibly regional) Emmy awards. I will search further. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That USA Today published something from WXIA does not render their report invalid for our purposes -- it is USA Today putting their editorial weight behind the article, and it clearly discusses Mohr in-depth, impartially, here. There is more coverage here. Also winning a Miss Georgia 1985 beauty title; plus winning awards such as an Emmy. Adds up to WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Local Emmys do not imply notability--we've deleted many articles with them. Most winners of Miss Georgia do ot have articles either. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a reason for WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. With time and effort, all of these Miss America system state-level winners can be proven notable by Wikipedia standards and they'll have articles. Time is linear so some have to be created before the others and that they're not cranked out in batches of 50 at a time is best for everybody. - Dravecky (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In addition to the various reliable online sources I've added to this article, there are also a number of offline sources that cover the subject in-depth. If you search NewsBank with '"Samantha Mohr" "Miss Georgia"' you'll find a number of lengthy Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles focused solely on Samantha Mohr. - Dravecky (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG & WP:BASIC, and Dravecky's sourcing & improvements to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 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 Dean Ing. Don't usually close on one !vote but it's been up 3 weeks and to be perfectly honest I don't think a 3rd relist will get the AFD another !vote so gonna redirect instead. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic Shock (book)

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

Non notable book. I'm not finding reviews or other substantial third-party coverage to establish this title as notable. Mikeblas (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dean Ing as although there's no good coverage for this itself, I found few results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lamudi

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

Nonnotable online business. NO independent sources: only press-releases. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs editing, however standard searches show enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to suggest notability. See Die Welt(Germany) article, Al Bawaba article, TechCrunch article and Tech in Asia article for starters. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Keep - if nothing else the controversies section has some independent coverage - notoriety is notability...

That said, cleanup's going to be a nuisance. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotion Tango

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

Prodded and prod removed by article creator with the comment, "was it a charting song? https://books.google.cl/books?id=YyEUAQAAIAAJ." Link is a deadlink. "Solitary reference merely confirms the song exists and contradicts the label information… still no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG which also reads “Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album” and WP:GNG. Richhoncho (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:NSONG Flat Out (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing that suggests the single meets WP:NSONGS. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Sam Sailor and Flat Out. The article can be crated again if notability can be established, but right now there is no indication of that. —Sietecolores (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sufficient claim for notability - and I tried. Collect (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a rather soft delete Courcelles (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Systems Holdings Limited

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

It seems this existed at some point or may actually continue to exist as results such as these confirm its stock exchange markets and there's a little info at Reuters, Bloomberg and WSJ but my searches found nothing better than a few Books results. It's worth noting the first external link is now closed and the second one (which can also be found with a basic browser search) never shows despite loading for eternity. There's also no evidence of Chinese sources or a Chinese name so I hope this can attract some attention (whether it can be improved or not) as this has existed since September 2006 with hardly any edits since then (all editors have actually since ceased to edit excluding bots). SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is possible that the parent company, Beijing Teamsun Technology Co, is notable, but thissubsidiary is not. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rather soft delete Courcelles (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph F. Cada

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

My searches found nothing good to suggest better notability and improvement and instead my searches found results for a law-related person here and here. Finally I actually found what look like relevant results here but they're not much help (they confirm existence but not improvement and notability). SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 20 August 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 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable career. One minor prize, and one 4th place. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Not gonna lie even I'm a tad confused on the "fancruft" part but whatever, Consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Universe editions

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

unsourced fancruft The Banner talk 08:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It's just a list of the individual pageants; I don't see how that's "fancruft". And I don't see how the dates and venues wouldn't be verifiable, so the present sourcing is irrelevant. postdlf (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not fancruft in the least. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do something with it This is not really a "list" as WP usually uses the word, since the items do not seem to have their own articles -- or they are not linked. I suggest renaming to Miss Universe locations or merging to Miss Universe as a new section where it would not be out of place. My bad. I see the dates are linked to articles on the individual contests. I don't see any policy problem then. Merging to Miss Universe is also an option. Borock (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a well-defined, useful list of amnageable size, notable subject, all entries are blue-linked, and pertinent information is presented, passes WP:SALAT Kraxler (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Belleza México 2015

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

unsourced local pageant, crystal ball The Banner talk 08:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Then you're going to have to delete the other 21 Nuestra Belleza México pageant articles we have here. Mexico's Miss USA equivalent, and even more notable this year thanks to a certain US candidate's views on the country's people that had Televisa pull this pageant's winner out of Miss Universe competition. As usual with longtime yearly events, unless an asteroid falls somewhere in Quintana Roo, this is undoubtedly taking place. Nate • (chatter) 08:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to start jumping up and down. I can be convinced by reliable sources (conform WP:RS) in the article... The Banner talk 18:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above and [37]. Glad we had that chat about WP:BEFORE. Vrac (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, so you have seen the effectively 66 hits on Google and 27 hits on Google News for a search on "Nuestra Belleza México 2015". The Banner talk 10:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Notability is not determined by Google hit counts. Vrac (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But they are a strong indicator... The Banner talk 22:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. Hits do not reveal depth of coverage. And we do not delete things based on indications one way or the other. Vrac (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oh, Sleeper. There wasn't consensus to keep, so I'm redirecting as it is the outcome that has gained the most consensus and is the most in-line with policy. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Blay

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

I would normally start with a PROD, but I suspect that will not succeed. While subject has performed with multiple bands, the subject is not individually notable and so fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by " not individually notable"? --Metalworker14 (Yo) 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

He's not notable on his own. His bands are notable and have been written about, he has not been the subject of 1. significant coverage in 2. reliable sources that are 3. independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Blay is a member of Wovenwar and Oh, Sleeper, and if the article cannot be kept, it should probably be redirected with history to the latter. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oh Sleeper (as out of the two, this one seems to have more albums) and my searches found nothing good aside from mentions through these groups. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dumebi Agbakoba

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

This seems like a rather obvious case of non-notability and the history and content suggest this was for personal promotion purposes (whether intended or not). My searches found nothing to suggest improvement with my best search results here and here and searches at Nigerian sources This Day Live, Vanguard, The Tide, The Punch (aside from what appears to be a passing mention here), Business Day and The Guardian (among other Nigerian news attempts as well). I simply don't see any improvement here and it appears unlikely her publication, event and beauty store are notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't LinkedIn. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, no evidence of notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiran Abeysekara

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

Not Notable - No evidence that the subject satisfies the criteria under WP:NACTOR. Article lacks any in-depth support of individual's notability - merely references in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as my searches actually found links here, here, here and here but, unless others think this is enough, it may be a case of not yet & too soon. SwisterTwister talk 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dyett

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

News only has a single, trivial mention of this subject. Newspapers has another single cite, but it's about the firm, not the individual. Books revealed quite a few, but they are about a different Dyett, from the 19th century. Scholar revealed several trivial sources. Highbeam has a few trivial hits. And JStor had zero hits. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obvious vanity bio. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG and fails to state any possible reason why the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources. Msnicki (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG requirements. Note also his partner Rajeev_Bhatia, which also appears to have been self-created -Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skaidrīte. Courcelles (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skaidra

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

Only person listed with this name is non-notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skaidrīte, which is apparently a rather more popular diminutive version of this name. PWilkinson (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Strapped

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

Non-notable album. Comprehensively fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG with not a single reliable source. Flat Out (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This release just doesn't seem notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not state importance. It even said it did not chart. Charlie the Pig (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:MUSIC. Not even print coverage is available about this. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Stoch

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

Delete: as non-notable actress, educator. Quis separabit? 01:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (as article creator) Meets the general notability guideline (multiple coverage in reliable sources) and WP:NACTOR "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". --Canley (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. She is also credited on the Wikipedia in numerous places as Amy Stock and Amy Stock-Poynton.[38]

I added a filmography from The New York Times, it might be missing some titles, added Rotten Tomatoes profile ref also. 009o9 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Unthinkable to delete someone who had a speaking role in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Seriously, though, this is an actress with enough roles in notable films, TV to be an obvious keep. Kudos to User:009o9 for WP:HEYMANN . E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hello world program examples

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

This article falls under several of the categories listed in WP:NOT: WP:FORUM WP:NOTREPOSITORY WP:NOTCATALOG WP:NOTHOWTO WP:IINFO

This list could never hope to be a complete list and would be better off linking to Github. This repository appears to be the most complete collection of Hello world examples: [39]. David Condrey ^{log talk} 01:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is so right. There are just too many reasons why this doesn't belong here, not the least of which is that it is certainly not a notable topic. Msnicki (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that's "too many reasons" and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Anything resembling a policy-based reason? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NP, Andy. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources treating the subject in depth as required by WP:GNG to demonstrate notability of the topic. The whole list appears to me to be someone's WP:SYNTHESIS, the creation of list that cannot be supported as a topic found in reliable sources. WP is not a WP:CATALOG. Just because it's possible to make such a list, doesn't mean we should have one. Now that you have some policy-based reasons, will you change your !vote? Msnicki (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like it, but it shouldn't be here. Also, there is Hello world/Text - Rosetta Code, which could be referenced by Hello World program TJJFV (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added such a link TJJFV (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I like the list, Nom is right. This page could conceivably grow to an astounding size given there are thousands of programming languages. -DevinCook (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Nom said. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen no valid reason in the nom and nothing added to it other than "per nom".

Should we have the Hello World article? If so, then we need this list – even if for no other reason that to stop the useful article accumulating that same list yet again. As a list, this is manageable (even if it's not the greatest contribution to human knowledge ever) and it prevents a real loss of quality elsewhere.

Even considered as a list, this meets our requirements. It's a list of a notable concept, where the individual entries are identifiable and enumerable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: A Hello World program article should exist if it is notable; discussion of that can be elsewhere. Is there precedent for keeping pages to be a sink for low quality contributions to the benefit of another page or ease of maintenance? An arbitrary example of code for a Hello World program in an arbitrary language is not intrinsically notable. It may be that consensus could be reached for a basis for determining whether a specific example has extrinsic notability. For nearly all of the examples on existing page/list, there is no source/reference and are thus not verifiable for notability, validity nor correctness. — TJJFV (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, nor encyclopedic in form. An OR cut-and-paste mess. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary directory full of original research, and there are many ways to write a Hello World program in any given language. Esquivalience ^t 02:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Allis

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

Granted, this is a foreign subjects so sources may be archived and offline (and the article itself says Arabic information has not been translated) but my searches found nothing to confirm this article and this has existed since February 2008 with no significant edits. The article also never lists an Arabic name to help search or anything else useful. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re=-creation if someone can find sources. A 12th century Egyptian author in Arabic whose work is not translated--I can;t search for this; atthe very least we'd need the arabic characters, not a transcription of unknown origin. The information must have come from somewhere, and he may well be notable, but we can't keep something with no sources at all. I note the first version describes him as a Saudi 15th century writer, so there may be some confusion. This should have been dealt with in 2008, when the original author was still here to assist. That it's been tinkered with in details ever since without realizing the fundamental issues is unfortunately characteristic of WP. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In its current state, and with the lack of any interested editors, it seems unlikely that this article can be improved to meet notability standards. Definitely without prejudice. I can't find any sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Moderate Party

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

Non-notable political party that ran only two candidates and won a whopping 0.01% of the popular vote. Unable to find any coverage beyond what is already referenced in the article. Article references are far from in-depth. The CBC article, for example, mentions the subject once in a sentence that's just a list of parties. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just can't find extensive coverage in reliable sources - everything I find is a brief mention in a list. I'm willing to be proven wrong here if someone has better search fu than I. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has the same type of sourcing as Party for People with Special Needs, another minor party that fielded 2 candidates (the minimum required to be a registered party), and is still roughly on par with several of the other articles for minor parties. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 14:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a political party to have an article on Wikipedia, the only notability standard it has to meet is that it's duly registered as a political party that's eligible to run candidates in an election. It doesn't have to win seats, it doesn't have to garner any specific percentage of the popular vote — it merely has to be registered as a political party with the appropriate electoral authority. More referencing than this would certainly be welcomed if at all possible, but no more than this is required. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Bearcat, I don't mean to be contentious, but can you steer me to any consensus about this? It seems a bit troubling that a precedent would bypass reliance on reliable sources. I have a lot of sympathy for small political parties, but I have a hard time supporting the existence of an article that that doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is reliable source coverage in the article already — two articles in major news organizations of record may not be a lot of coverage, but it's not nothing, either. We obviously never grant any article a permanent exemption from ever having to cite a single RS at all, but while some criteria can certainly be passed only by ensuring that an article already contains a GNG-satisfying level of sourcing, there are some others that can be satisfied by the provision of even just one reliable source. (A person who wins an Academy Award, for example, must be kept even if the article is cited to nothing more than a simple list of that year's Academy Award winners, as long as that list is appearing in an RS. And a sitting member of a provincial, state or federal legislature must be kept as long as the article is cited to one reference which verifies that they've actually held or been declared elected to the office they're claimed to have held. It takes more sources than that to make an article good, absolutely — but there are certain specific notability criteria for which it takes just one RS to make an article keepable.) Registered political parties are considered to be in the latter class, because the election(s) that they ran candidates in aren't being properly covered if any political party in that election's results table fails to lead the reader to more information about that political party, and leaves the reader of the article about that election helplessly wondering "how the heck am I supposed to find out what this party stood for or campaigned on?" Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of barriers for the inclusion of articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology. Simply put, this is the sort of material that should be in any comprehensive encyclopedia worthy of the name. So keep in accordance with the policy of Ignore All Rules (use common sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uber comment. Bearcat, you suggest, or say, that your level of inclusion is a standard here, but when asked you didn't provide it. If it is true that "For a political party to have an article on Wikipedia, the only notability standard it has to meet is that it's duly registered as a political party that's eligible to run candidates in an election", please show it. Tim's argument seems to lean on that stance as well, though the addition of IAR is very clever (not bad, Tim--and this is not a bad trick to play that trump card in). Nwlaw63 agrees with the nominator, basically seeking deletion because of lack of sourcing. User:RA0808, unfortunately, does not present much of an argument and it is countered quickly with a WP:OTHERSTUFF or whatever the acronym is here. If I were the closing admin here (I understand why it was relisted, not closed!) I would lean toward delete because a. the "lack of sourcing" argument is not efficiently countered; b. the "but other articles are like this" argument does not hold up; and c. Bearcat has not pointed to a kind of consensus/standard for political parties. The funny thing is, the moment Bearcat does that, OTHERSTUFF does acquire a kind of validity. Of all the 'keep arguments, Tim's IAR is the strongest.
Or, in other words, dear editors, you have some more work to do here. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to List of political parties in Ontario - the coverage from reliable sources is not significant coverage and, unlike Academy-award-winners, lack of any reason to assume that such sources almost certainly exist. I take issue with Bearcat's assertion that "the only notability standard it has to meet is that it's duly registered as a political party that's eligible to run candidates in an election." In some countries or political sub-divisions you can form a political party with little more than a filing fee, a statement about what your party is about, and a petition signed by a relatively small number of people. Bearcat's claim, if true, would open the project up to abuse by small parties seeking publicity. Having said this, I have no objection to moving this to Draft:- or User:-space if someone needs time to track down additional reliable sources to see if, either individually or in combination, the topic has received significant coverage from them. If this closes as Redirect I have no objection to keeping the page history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following up on Bearcat's assertion about what makes a political party "wiki-notable": The process for registering as a political party in Ontario seems almost trivial - you just have to find two people willing to run under the party banner, or find 1000 Ontario citizens willing to sign a petition within a 1-year period. I'm wondering how long before we have the Ontario Wikipedian's Party - the party that anyone can be a candidate with. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active political party which is notable enough for an article, is referenced, etc. There's no requirement for a political party's candidate or candidates to win an election for it to have an article. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Henry

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

Puffed up article, not notable, just self-promotion Sheroddy (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (changed from Delete) no claim of notability in the article, WP:PROMO advert of just another art critic, Kraxler (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being chief art critic for two major publications is certainly a strong claim of notability, demonstrating stature in their field. The nominator's statement is absolute nonsense; there's no sign whatever of self-promotion, and only a few easily fixed moments of peacockery. Nom seems to be on a disturbingly Qworty-esque jihad regarding writers/critics; their deletion rationale makes no substantive arguments. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Being chief art critic for two major publications is certainly a strong claim of notability, demonstrating stature in their field." In principle, that's a tenable view, but would you care to say what guideline she would pass? Kraxler (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE (aka WP:JOURNALIST. WP:ANYBIO. And that's even without considering that she's a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at the guidelines in relation to this subject. FRSA is not inherently notable, I'm afraid. There must be thousands of them, and I've seen some being deleted, and some currently being here at AfD. It certainly adds up to ther things, though. Kraxler (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Obvious claims to notability, verified by at least one independent reliable source via the Herald Scotland article about her donations. Combined with other mentions, her cited writings, and it makes a good case that Mrs. Henry is "regarded as an important figure" in the art world, per WP:CREATIVE. Still would like to see more independent reliable refs added. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is enough here to support WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing any evidence supporting the nomination's claim that this is self-promotion. The article seems to have been created as part of an editathon and seems to be just the sort of article one would expect from such an event. The subject seems reasonably notable, as her activities appear in books such as A Companion to British Art: 1600 to the Present and Scottish Art Since 1960: Historical Reflections and Contemporary Overviews. Andrew D. (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have not looked closely at the sources, but her position as art critic for major newspapers, as well as her being Scotland's curator for their Venice Biennale pavillion denotes significant notability, IMHO.New Media Theorist (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons listed above, but also because the article was nominated for deletion by a new user User:Sheroddy who began nominating articles for deletion within their third edit. While I strongly believe that we should be bold this is maybe a bit too bold. Theredproject (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject of this article appears notable. Her work as art critic of The Herald (Glasgow) would seem to demonstrate notability as per WP:JOURNALIST. Her entry in Debretts also points towards many other achievements during her career as a creative professional. [40] Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've tidied up the article including noting that her "papers" are being held by the Glasgow School of Art. I cannot see why this was nominated. Victuallers (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Reyes

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

Delete: as non-notable entertainer. Quis separabit? 00:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has enough major roles to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, did you even check for sources before nominating the article for deletion? She's been covered in a lot of websites, as well as entertainment magazines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable. Nominator has the burden of proving non-notability which was not done. —seav (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:ENTERTAINER --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nemat Sadat

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

Allegedly CSD-A7, claimed to be an autobiography, however there is enough information here that the article could be salvaged in a rewrite as opposed to deleted. I leave it to the community to decide this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He created his own article and he is not even notable per Wikipedia guidelines, and nearly all the sources that he cites are unverifiable, unreliable, and mirrors, I took the time to check them. He claimed to be the first gay Afghan but I proved him wrong. See Talk:Nemat Sadat. What's more funny is that he claims to live in New York but his IP is located in California. Haha.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:TNT and wait until someone unconnected to the subject writes an article to determine whether the subject is even notable. We can't get a neutrally written encyclopedia article out of such a high level of self-promotion, and this is at best a borderline case so there's little harm in not having an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Baars

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: (3rd nomination); 1st AFD=deleted; 2nd AFD=closed as no consensus. Questionable notability as actress. Quis separabit? 00:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than passing mentions. Notifying still active users from previous AfDs, LibStar and Alison. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I originally nominated this 6 years ago and I see no improvement in the recreation meeting WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 27 August 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.