Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 October	17 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evette Borromeo

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

No reliable sources can be found for the person. The article is not eligible for BLPPROD since it was created in 2009. (Note: Completing AfD on request by IP 121.54.54.236.) Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC and article fails WP:V. A search yielded almost nothing. Note this !vote is independent of the nomination which I was simply completing on behalf of an IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This source says that she is writer of The X Factor Philippines and Pilipinas Got Talent. --Human3015^TALK 23:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source, and certainly does not come even close to meeting the requirement of in depth coverage from multiple RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did the nominator just cast his vote immediately below his own nomination? Weird. But yea, i can't find anything substantial about this person from a reliable source.--RioHondo (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nom was an IP. I just finished it for them. My own vote is registered separately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IMdB articles on the shows indicate that for each, she was just one of the many writers. IMdB is fairly reliable for that sort of data,and demonstrates in this case there is no substantial notability DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Only link provided is also dead. Google search did not give anything. This should have been marked for CSD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azimut Holding

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

No indication of notability, no sources provided other than a link to the company's own website. My own search just turns up trivial mentions and press releases. mikeman67 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The firm is international in character, not just Italian. "Azimut Holding makes fourth acquisition" in Investment Europe discussing its Australian subsidiary, they have others. There are the usual summaries of the firm at Bloomberg, CapitalCube and MarketWatch, which provide verifiability, but not significant coverage. See WP:CORPDEPTH. There are also the routine mentions of changes in stock price and mergers and acquiitions. However, there is other coverage. The 15 April 2014 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article entitled "Boom Time for Italian Asset Managers", states in part Azimut Holding, one of Italy's largest pure asset managers which is a claim to notability. They are also called a a well known bulletproof hoster for their clients. Cloudtacker indicates that journalist and security researcher Brian Krebs dedicated an article about them in October 2013. (I have not yet found this article.) The tax fraud investigation initiated in 2011 by the Milan Finance Police Corps of the Italian Finance Police regarding the fund's 2003 transactions seems to have died without a specific assessment being made. Azimut's major competitors, according to the WSJ are BlackRock Inc., AllianceBernstein Holding L.P., Och-Ziff Capital Management LLC, and INVESCO Ltd; while Seeking Alpha includes the fund managers Anima and Banca Generali among Azimut's competitors. While the most recent business news in English was, according to Dow Jones Newswires 21 May 2015: "Azimut Holding Raised to Buy From Neutral by Citigroup" which was not a press release from Azimut, but is not particularly exciting, but there is other coverage including Cloudtacker discusses in a couple of articles the assitance provided by Azimut to the Russian and Italian police in helping others recover from cybercrime. How Hacking Team Helped IT Special Operations Group with BGP Routing Hijack on AZIMUT-AS Azimut Holding S.P.A. and How Hacking Team Helped RU Special Operations Group with BGP Routing Hijack on PKF-AZIMUT-AS PKF Azimut Ltd.. Azimut's Bennet Division made the news regarding Recent Case Law On Liquidated Damages And Penalties: Further Shift Towards A ‘Commercial Justification’ Test in Azimut-Benetti SpA v. Darrell Marcus Healey. The Italian site Trend Online has a recent (1 October) note on Azimut's business "Azimut Holding: situazione grafica resta estremamente precaria" ("Azimut Holding: graphic situation remains extremely precarious"). Overall, there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top University in USA 2015

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

Although this list is accurate and correct, it is just a synthesis of different rankings. As those rankings already have this information, this is an unnecessary article. Natg 19 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Awful title, looks like spam to advertise a random ranking site.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plausible case for G11 speedy as unambiguously intended to promote the web site on which it relies as its single source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Jackson

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little depth of coverage in reliable sources. A few routine bios following her appointment, but little else. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable person.--Human3015^TALK 00:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We're not WP:LINKEDIN.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest obvious improvement and FWIW the first AfD was for a pornography Nikki Jackson, not this one. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ordinary person doing their job.TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no different from anyone else doing a normal job!, Clearly a LINKEDIN-type article!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet anything. CSD nomination would have saved time for several editors. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East India Natural Goods

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

Easily speedy and PROD material with its current state and my searches simply found nothing better than this (passing mention only about founder, not even about the company), this and this. It's also worth noting it seems the company may've started this in July 2009 and it simply hasn't changed since then. Pinging taggers Dialectric and Calaka. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems no significance.--Human3015^TALK 23:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails CSD A7 and/or WP:GNG. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with above, I tried doing a google search and all the links are lists upon lists/machine generated and nothing of actual substance. Company is real and exists but unless the article creator can find sources to signify its notability soon, I would say it is safe to delete.Calaka (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since the only Keep rationales are based on the OBE, which does not confer automatic notability, and the subject has requested deletion, I think the outcom here is clear. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tunde Banjoko

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

Despite receiving an OBE there is no indication Banjoko meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Coverage consists of passing mentions only. The organization he founded may be notable; Banjoko himself does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are merely passing mentions, list entries, or Banjoko being quoted on his organization, not detailed coverage of Banjoko himself. Huon (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was awarded Order of the British Empire which is I think enough for his notability as per WP:ANYBIO. He does have some coverage like in this reliable book. Judith Leary-Joyce (27 December 2012). The Psychology of Success: Secrets of serial achievement. Pearson UK. pp. 40–. ISBN 0-273-74695-2.. Article also has some references. --Human3015^TALK 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Huon - do you have any idea what an Order of the British Empire is? It's an order of chivalry that is only awarded for outstanding achievement. They're not given away like Purple Hearts. Anybody who has been awarded an OBE is notable. And the sources are reliable. Bamber Clarte (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for the record, Tunde Banjoko has contacted OTRS (VRTS ticket # 2015101610019154) and requested deletion of this article on grounds of notability and privacy concerns. It seems Banjoko disagrees with the assertion that an OBE means automatic notability. Since there are more than 100,000 living members of the OBE, more than one in 1000 Britons, I agree with him. For comparison, military personnel is presumed to be notable if they were awarded the highest order for valor; being awarded a military MBE would not mean automatic notability. The same should hold for civilian awards by analogy. For low-profile individuals like Banjoko the Presumption in favor of privacy should hold. Huon (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huon I have some questions regarding this. I am not particularly asking about this article but it is in general. How we can delete an article on request of the subject? If we don't create article on his/her request then why we should delete on his/her request? To avoid any kind of BLP violation maximum we can do is to remove unsourced content, remove allegations or legal matter on which trial is going on in court etc. But if someone is surely notable and if he/she asks to delete his/her article then what we should do? I think deletion of article should be based on consensus of the Wikipedia community. --Human3015^TALK 11:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, there is a presumption in favor of privacy. Banjoko isn't "surely notable"; three passing mentions and a book that uses him as a case study don't equate to significant coverage. I remember a guideline stating that in such cases the subject's wishes to remove an article should be taken into account, but I couldn't find it again. Huon (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the criteria for being made an OBE are far more stringent than those for being given your own Wikipedia page. And while we're on the subject were did this figure of 100,000 living members of the OBE come from? And since when has notability been measured in the number of web search results? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Order of the British Empire is divided into five classes - we generally accept that the three highest classes (of which relatively few are awarded) are sufficient to assume notability, but the letters OBE indicate that the subject's award was in the fourth class. This does not automatically mean that the subject is not notable - the activities of the subject that gained him the award might well independently meet WP:GNG, but it does mean that this needs to be established. PWilkinson (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources provided are trivial mentions and my own searches turned up almost nothing about him. I would point out that he's given quotes to Bloomberg and Huffington Post, so I'm not sure if he qualifies as a WP:LOWPROFILE person. mikeman67 (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like I said before, web presence is no indication of notability. If this article breaches some Wikipedia privacy policy then please cite it and then delete the article. Otherwise keep it. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources very much is an indication of a lack of notability; see WP:GNG. I haven't seen any evidence that there are significant offline sources discussing Banjoko in any detail. "Web presence" is a red herring. By the way, the number of 100,000 (including MBEs) comes from the monarchy's own website. Huon (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's still only about 0.2% of the population. Bamber Clarte (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not just OBEs. Far more MBEs are awarded than OBEs. Still quite a few OBEs though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that we have never considered the OBE sufficient for notability on its own, although it is a contributing factor. You have to have a CBE or above for any form of inherent notability. OBEs and MBEs are just much too common. If he had an entry in Who's Who I'd be more convinced of his notability, but he doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would like to change my earlier vote, as Huon pointed out that according to official website there are more than 100,000 living awardees of OBE, so we should create article on those who passes WP:GNG. There can be much more winners of this award who are not-living. I don't know exact number of articles that WikiProject UK has but WikiProject India has 152,000 articles, I think if we make article on every living and dead OBE winner then their number can cross all articles related to India. We should create article on only those having some reasonable coverage.--Human3015^TALK 17:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRECA

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

Considerably speedy and PROD material but as my searches found a few links here, here, here and here, I wanted comments to see if this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added several references to the article, from the Highbeam search posted by SwisterTwister. I suggest the article be refocused to be about the online school, TRECA Digital Academy, rather than the parent company. The school seems notable while the company does not. And since it is a diploma-granting institution, it may qualify for an article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If the article is kept, I will undertake to rewrite, refocus, and rename the article to be about the school. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly neither a candidate for speedy deletion, the claims of significance are credible, nor for uncontroversial deletion observing WP:PRODNOM. I have added 3 {{cite book}}s and 3 {{cite news}}, there's sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources available to pass WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Holloway

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Her academic position is not notable; I searched Google Scholar and found nothing at all; I could find no reviews of her books, which may not be surprising since both were published in 2015. The preface to one of her books describes her as a "young" academic, maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON for her to have an article here. MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did an independent search. Does not meet WP:GNG, not even close, at this juncture.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one review of her book by Lesser, Emma, and Matthew W. Hughey. Review. “Getting Away with Murder: The Twentieth-Century Struggle for Civil Rights in the U.S. Senate / Vanessa A. Holloway” Ethnic and Racial Studies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericktx (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her books were not both published in 2015. The first one was published December 15, 2014 and the second one was May 8, 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericktx (talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that! Here is a link to the review: [1] --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please kindly remove the page issues link on the top left corner of her page? She is a burgeoning scholar and has a new book about civil rights forthcoming with the University of Alabama Press titled, Discrimination in Agriculture: The USDA and Black Farmers' Elusive Quest for Acreage and Land Tenure in the Post-Civil Rights Era.

Please keep her page and remove the page issues link. Many thanks to wikipedia for support! So now when people google search her or her books, there is an article entry here for her as a scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericktx (talk • contribs) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Does not (yet) meet wp:nacademic. May later. Zero cites on her books, no articles retrieved in G-Scholar (one possible essay in a book of essays). LaMona (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When will her article entry be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericktx (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was listed on October 16, so it will remain open at least until October 23. At that point an administrator will decide if there is a community consensus to keep it or delete it, or if the discussion should be extended. I understand your wish to have an article here about here, but Wikipedia has to have standards for who it has articles about. In her case the standards can be found at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Even if she doesn't meet those standards now, it is quite possible that she will meet them a little later, when her career is more developed and other scholars have taken more notice of her. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WorldCat shows low holdings of all her books, which is expected, given that she seems to be an early-in-career scholar (Medgar Evers College lists her as an adjunct lecturer). A book review in a low-impact, discipline-specific journal like Ethnic and Racial Studies is considered to be average scholarly accomplishment (as opposed to a review in a high-impact, general-interest periodical, which would be much more significant). Finally, there's no WP:RS support. Archetypical case of WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I've looked here there and everywhere but I have run out of ways to save this article, so I'm afraid it has to go. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, agree that a case of WP:TOOSOON, a search brought up these as well - [2] Africana Studies Department Newsletter, 2014 under Alumni News mentions publication of her 1st book, and this [3] - The City University of New York announcing the book launch with a mention of it being nominated for Benjamin L. Hooks National Book Award but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Search did not turn up anything to suggest they meet either WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Laure du-Serre-Telmon

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources, nor are there likely to be any because she was only "discovered" almost four decades after her death (thus we would not expect to find coverage in newspapers of the time etc.) The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails SIGCOV, there being no sources provided whatsoever. Article created by sock of INDEF-blocked user. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources that I can see. EEng (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and not even verified. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single source included in the article. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Pointy article created by now-banned editor. Cites no sources. Even if sourced, there's nothing in the text that even asserts, let alone establishes, notablity. David in DC (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians, I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all these "oldest person" AfDs consolidated and nominated together. Looks likes the majority of the top 40 names in List of the verified oldest people have articles. Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't confer notability as that term is defined in our guidelines. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject and of one another defines notability here. David in DC (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Age of this person is not certified Guinness World Records and Gerontology Research Group.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Grünwald

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

Raised at the biography noticeboard - Primary sources with no real evidence of notability. Previous AFD had one keep comment and to quote it, "Barely notable but I'm sure someone in the Comic area can improve it" - but no one did in 30 months and my Internet investigation revealed nothing that changed my mind that this person doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not finding any sources suggesting notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be fair my Keep !vote in the previous AFD was pretty bloody poor!, Anyway I had hoped someone would improve it but it's never happened and it's extremely unlikely it ever will!, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason L. N. Campbell

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

Non-notable footballer, only appearances are in Jamaican 3rd League (KSAFA Major League), which is not a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Joseph2302 (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom based on WP:NFOOTY. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sharma

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

Biographical SShyu01 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - looks like a biog written by a paid acolyte or ghost writer. However the reason for deletion is farcical. Can a passing admin close this as a snow-ball keep and not waste any more time here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I relent. But what other reaction was expected when the reason given for the AfD was "Biographical" ? What sort of reason is that ? The AfD guidance clearly requires that a case be made her for deletion and there is not an expectation that every visiting editor will read the article and jump to the identical reasoning for deletion. This AfD fails process , hence my original comment. It is also a lousy article but I would rather stick corkscrews in my toe-nails then re-read the article and all its references so No opinion Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ~~Delete~~, the source links are broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by SShyu01 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) The nominator can't vote in the discussion, the nomination itself counts as delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The cites in the article are crap. This [4] profile in his law school alumni magazine appears to be the only profile of him. Lots of PR references to him, drowning out my attempts to see if he meets WP:GNG. The opening line need to be rewritten to say why he is notable if this is kept, his amorphous sounding current white collar job makes this sound like a WP:LINKEDIN page.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and restart when better at best because although it seems acceptable at first glance, this actually could be better and we'll wait for that to come. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly promotional article which seems to overstate the importance of the subject in many of the endeavors in the article. Other than basic mentions of regular business activities, can't see how he's particularly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. The article is definitely promotional and is a typical example of paid writing on WP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of salaries of heads of state and government

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

While the list would be interesting, it is mostly empty. There are some media articles on few select countries, but there does not seem to be a comprehensive list of state leader salaries and putting one together would be original research. Prod removed by original author without comment. Renata (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the list is indeed still empty at the moment (oct 2015), I disagree it should be removed. It is a quite important issue/article. As other comparison articles have proven, lists are often filled in quickly once the article becomes more popular. Info added isn't necessarily original research; as long as the data comes from respectable sources, this isn't an issue.

Redneck rick (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy until it can become a larger article. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the list does look empty, it's mostly because the creator aimed high with every nation out there. Most users going to this list will find what they're looking for. It certainly needs work (and I'll try to add a few myself), but not having enough entries is hardly grounds for deletion. It's notable, encyclopedic, relevant, and easily verified (salaries tend to be encoded in statute).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an interesting list and should be on Wikipedia. It can be improved. But it may take time, we should keep this in mainspace so that other users and some random IPs can write about their nation once they get notice of this list. If we delete it then certainly there will be no such kind of list again ever, no one will create so big table again.--Human3015^TALK 21:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Science Fiction Association

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

Contested prod. An annual convention which attracts a whopping 100 people speaks for the notability of the organization. No citations in current article. Non-notable association. Searches in News, Highbeam, and Newspapers returned zero results. Books returned some hits, but all appeared to be either trivial mentions, or mirrors of this wikipedia stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage here beyond mentions in blogs and trade and personal websites: Noyster (talk), 11:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N, verified after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks notable to science fiction of this nation. The Estonian name gets a few hits at news Estonia's a fairly small nation, and its language isn't English, so yeah you're not going to find a whole lot. But they apparently give awards even American writers notice.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as an alternative, I could support deleting this but making an article on Estonian science fiction and mention this group in that article.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation (why to keep) - I am the author of this Estonian Science Fiction Association text and i want to explain a bit. Like T. Anthony already said Estonian sci-fi club and community uses mostly estonian language and its official international name Estonian Science Fiction Association is not widely used because inside the country we use estonian version "Eesti Ulmeühing" ("ulme" is word for the science fiction). In addition to that Estonian sci-fi community is quite big and strong organization but unluckily a little-known in the wide world and does not have a connections to other foreign clubs/scenes. And this caused the problem that searches in English news, highbeam, and newspapers returned zero results. I can share tons of links to Estonian webs, but these are in estonia language and therefore usless for english wiki readers. --Metsavana (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Metsavana, I'm sympathetic, but @en Wikipedia is not to be used to promote your organization. That goes against our guidelines wp:promo. We have specific rules for organization notability wp:corp and we have to follow them for everyone. You can, however, add it to the List_of_science_fiction_conventions with a link. That would be a logical place for people to look, since they won't know the name of your convention in order to search for it. LaMona (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
question When informing world about the existence of Estonian sc-fi scene is promote then i am guilty. Do I understand correctly that in English Wikipedia should have only in English-speaking web existing and mentioned things? Perhaps I just miss the en.wikipedia.org principle. Metsavana (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not at all Metsavana - it is simply a question of notability. It would make no difference if this article was about the Arizona Science Fiction Association. If it doesn't meet notability criteria (see WP:GNG and in this case, since it's an organization, WP:NORG). BTW, there is a Baja Arizona Science Fiction Association, which is not notable enough for its own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is we have an article for TusCon, which is "presented every November by the Baja Arizona Science Fiction Association (BASFA)." So do you mean an article on Estcon would be better? Also we do have SF Minnesota, Science Fiction South Africa, SFera, Silesian Fantasy Club, and Turku Science Fiction Society. If this group can be shown to be similarly important to science fiction in Estonia why is that not notable? Should we change Outline of science fiction#Science_fiction_awards to limit it to larger nations?--T. Anthony (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A WP:OSE argument not germane to the discussion. Feel free to research those articles and nom any of them for AfD if they don't meet the notability criteria, as this article clearly doesn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OSE is an essay, not a guideline or anything. Perhaps things have changed, but traditionally an organization being nationally significant was significance. There are sources in Estonian.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was a "guideline or anything". Simply said that it should be consulted for guidance in this instance, which, if you read it, it says in its opening paragraph. It's totally appropriate based on your argument. And you still don't address the lack of notability of the group in the article. Regardless, take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be harder to show notability of things in small non-English speaking nations. There are articles in Postimees.[5][6] Although I didn't find anything in The Baltic Times so maybe it would make sense to delete this and just have an Estonian science fiction article instead.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yale

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E. Prod removed by article creator. "Petition" for MoH has not gone anywhere in several years, and it is unlikely that it will. MSJapan (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedians have not come into an agreement into what constitutes notability for soldiers. WP:PEOPLE states we should check WP:SOLDIER but that page is an essay rather than a guideline. Regardless, the essay states we should consider whether the soldier received the second highest award a nation can confer. This is the case for Yale who received the Navy Cross. Looking at what we do rather than what we should or should not, one notices that it's quite common to host articles for Navy Cross recipients as we have a standalone category for them: Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross (United States). The category hosts more than 680 articles. Picking one randomly, such as Edward H. Ahrens, we notice it's common in Wikipedia to host articles for soldiers that only detail the event related to the award. Yale differentiates himself from the rest as it's likely that his Navy Cross will be "upgraded" to a Medal of Honor in the future. As our guidelines are not clear it's difficult to assess whether Yale deserves an article on its own. However, when looking at the number of references provided and their time horizon once notices that Yale's notability extends throughout the years: he has been covered in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2014. Even in 2015 he is still casually mentioned by local press [7] and by other organizations [8]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those 680 people will also have another reason for notability. Those that don't should be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yale was a Navy Cross winner, second highest award of the US Armed Forces. Few get this award, most, like Yales, are posthumous, for doing an act that you know is more than likely to result in your death. From a small town in Virginia, I am trying to get his portrait painted on his High School wall in Prince Edward County, Virginia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.182.70 (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Yale and Haerter did display extraordinary heroism warranting the award of the Navy Cross, they are one of nearly 6900 estimated recipients of the Navy Cross. The bill to upgrade their awards died in congressional committee in 2014. The consensus has been that being awarded a nations highest award would confer sufficient notability, but the second highest award does not. This would seem to be WP:BIO1E. Their deaths are tragic but Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you account for time horizon? Yale continues to be covered by reliable sources years after his death. WP:BIO says that's enough to consider notability. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage still about the 1 Event. EricSerge (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that coverage by Fox News, Business Insider and Military Times can be considered "local" coverage though. Besides, we don't care if the coverage is local or not. Our notability guidelines only care about independent coverage on time horizon. Yale fulfills that criteria. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single second-level award is not generally regarded as enough to establish notability. We have deleted many recipients of such awards of various nationalities. I see no reason to make an exception here. If it is subsequently upgraded to the Medal of Honor then obviously he will become eligible for an article, but not yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above about time horizon. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Every serviceman from the United States killed or decorated these days gets plenty of internet coverage. That doesn't make every one of them notable. It's just a symptom of the internet age. Is he any more significant than someone who won a Navy Cross in the Second World War just because he lived in the 21st century? Of course he isn't. That's why we have WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ROUTINE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. Our notability guidelines don't care about date of birth, they only care about whether independent reliable sources cover the subject at hand. In this case they do. Period. Haerter satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

If that's the case then so does pretty much every other American serviceman killed or decorated in the internet age. Do you really believe that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E, notability not established outside a single event, nor is his award sufficiently exceptional.--Staberinde (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not need to be established outside of a single event. Notability is only established by coverage by independent reliable sources. Classifying a Navy Cross as not being "sufficiently exceptional" as you argue is a subjective matter. WP:BIO is inconclusive in that respect as WP:SOLDIER was never ratified. However, by following WP:GNG and WP:BIO Yale satisfies our notability criteria as he has (1) received significant coverage (even after seven years after his death he is still being covered by reliable sources), (2) the sources that have covered him are considered reliable, (3) the sources that have covered him are secondary sources, (4) the sources that have covered him are independent of Yale, and (5) the significant coverage over an extended time horizon has created an assumption by itself that Yale is notable (the fact that a mess hall was named in his honor cements the notion that Yale is inheritable notable). Whether we agree with these or not is irrelevant in our mission, as this is determined by Wikipedia standards, not our personal ones. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A whole mess hall? Well, that cements it then, he must be notable! Er, no... Having a building named after you does not make you notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for others, and it's not uncommon for a part of a building to be re/named in someone's honor. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Revert to dab. Black Kite (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Family

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

This article has been nominated because the contents are already included in Television networks preceding ABC Family. The article also infers that Fox Family is a standalone network when it was in point of fact an iteration of the existing cable channel now known as ABC Family (soon to become Freeform). As a result, a merger into either of the two mentioned articles is not necessary, and there is no justification to keeping the nominated article in any other event. TVtonightOKC (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of these are adequate reasons to delete a sourced article. The article could be better, but this was a channel that was sold for $5.3 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.249 (talk • contribs)
Revert to this revision from November 2014. The result of a series of unnecessary edits done by Nelvana98 put this article into this position; prior to them, a disambig was in place at this position, which can be restored. --Shiningpikablu252 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to disambiguation page which existed until April 2015's poor edits in which the dab page was overwritten without any replacement navigation. This was done by a brand-new editor who edited this and ABC Family, and tried to create the duplicating The Family Channel(US TV Network) [sic] in one burst of editing on 19 April and has not edited since then. Any appropriate novel content can be added to Television_networks_preceding_ABC_Family#Fox_Family or a new article created at Fox Family Channel which currently redirects there. If someone wants to argue that the tv channel is the Primary Topic for "Fox Family" then they should do so formally, rather than just obliterate the existing dab page. PamD 09:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the content in the article was actually copied directly from an earlier version of the Fox Family section in the Television networks preceding ABC Family page, which has been expanded upon since then in the latter article, so there may not be any substantive content that can easily be transferred to that article since it is already featured there. TVtonightOKC (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 10:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Fox Family is already mentioned in the ABC Family (soon to be Freeform) article, so there's no need for a Fox Family article. Mr. Slinks (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert per Shiningpikablu252. I previously edited that disambiguation page and was quite surprised just now to see it crudely overwritten in this fashion. As TVtonightOKC notes, there's probably nothing in this page currently worth saving. — Scott • talk 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. no need for further comment. This is pure promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Komal Jha

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

Reason Rsriprac (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_of_biographies_and_BLPs

This person is relatively unknown. Reference sources do not exist or is of questionable credibility. IMDB profile also shows very little about this actress. Articles sounds like self-promotion article. Please queue this article for deletion.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and subsequently WP:GNG. Perhaps a new article in a decade or so when she has more experience. scope_creep (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Am the actual creator (User:Lamokahj) of Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komal_Jha . The page i created was not for Self Promotion and the person listed in the Page is not unknown. There are many Links in the page which supports my claim. I agree that the subject here is a living person (upcoming actress) and hence there is not much details on IMDB Page. I would like to revoke the deletion decision of this article. However, if there is something in the article that has been added by random users which shows self promotion, please help us by deleting that improper content but not the whole article. Let me know if any concerns. 103.16.69.13 (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're Premier Pegasus Consultants LLP. We have a presence in India and our team has confirmed that the actor mentioned on this page is a known public figure. An upcoming actress, indeed - nevertheless, she has several films to her credit and it would be kind if the profile on Wikipedia could stay. In case you need citations from credible newspapers in the country, write to Simon Steele, our senior partner in the UK office [[email protected] [ 44 (0) 203 695 3 734]] or Soumik Roy in our India office [[email protected]]. Your support in this regard would be very kind.

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT, and WP:GNG - maybe some day, but not today. It is WP:TOOSOON Scr★pIron^IV 18:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 20 refs, seem sufficient for GNG. Actor has 10 films to credit. I don't see how TOOSOON applies to this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. Many of the references are broken or have questionable sources. Premier Pegasus Consultants LLP seems to be a marking group that does promotions for actors, questionable motives. Additionally, PremierPegasus only contribution ever is to support keeping this page. Rsriprac (talk)

@Rsriprac - You seem to slander and consider yourself an authority on the lives and businesses of people around the world. Please refrain from making libelous remarks against entities and people that you do not know about. Before questioning the agenda of those supporting this actor and her page, could you please clarify your motives? Your comments reek of malicious intent at every stage. Tread with caution. Your profile does indicate that you have spent your entire life contributing to these Wiki pages (and you would be respected for that) lest you try to use your past efforts to cover up wrongful acts. Your Wiki user-page says, "IF SOMEONE CLAIMING TO BE ME OFFERS TO CREATE A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE FOR A FEE, IT IS NOT ME." That could indicate that you're taking the pains to stir trouble in the life of this actor because you're either being paid by someone to do so or because you have rotten plans in your head. I mean, if we were to "freely" speak our mind in our comments, those could be things we could accuse of. No? At the end of the day, I apologise if we've hurt you or your sentiments in any way. Let's forgive and forget and leave this page alone, as a favor to us and everyone else who is genuinely interested in this actor. Thank you!

For your reference, here are links to media articles about the actor. She is indeed famous, even if you don't know her. — PP SimonSteele (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/Komal-Jha-to-make-her-Bollywood-debut/articleshow/35481032.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/Will-Komal-Jha-be-second-time-lucky/articleshow/28292607.cms http://www.supergoodmovies.com/32032/sandalwood/komal-jha-is-nimbe-huli-herione-news-details

@PP_SimonSteele - You being Editor-in-Chief at Premier Pegasus and how motivated you are in creating an account to keeping this page alive makes make think of you having dubious motives. It is worth calling out that Premier Pegasus is a marketing/promotions company http://premierpegasus.com/digital-marketing/4589922397, looks like a conflict of interest. Rsriprac (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now actually as this could be another system matter and there could be better sources but I'm not seeing much convincing so delete for now until a better more solid article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we have some opinions about the sources offered by the (apparently COI) editor above? Sandstein 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the Redeemer selfie

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

Last year, a selfie took atop the Christ the Redeemer statue went viral, earning the photo a "UK Social Media Communications Award." Due to the viral-ness of it, there are plenty of sources, but I'm questioning the lasting notability of this event. Thus, I'm taking the issue here to get some feedback and consideration. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is just one event, but the world wide attention probably makes it notable. Borock (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – An WP:ATD would be to merge this to Christ the Redeemer (statue). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone develops this article beyond a short stub, there's no reason not to have it merged with Christ the Redeemer (statue). Victão Lopes ^Fala! 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be merged there? Is there an appropriate place where this material could be at that article? -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content would be suitable in a new "In popular culture" section in the Christ the Redeemer (statue) article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of WP:IPC, it just seems like glorified trivia to me. However, if that's the consensus, I'll go along with it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in mainstream/international news sources, such as [9], [10], [11], [12], so it passes WP:GNG. Sure, this could be merged, but the article would need to be retained in order to do so, and again, the topic is independently notable. Also, the article is about the photograph, how the photograph went viral, and also how the photograph was acquired, so I don't feel that WP:EVENT applies in a primary manner toward the overall topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – with reference to WP:DOGBITESMAN, I would consider an internet phenomenon which goes "overnight viral" then is promptly forgotten to be the internet version of an "And finally" story. That it later won some relatively unknown social media award lends no additional weight to its notability. And I agree with Tavix that it wouldn't be suitable to put this anywhere in the Christ the Redeemer (statue) article, and that even if there were an IPC section it would be a very low value bullet point on that list – therefore I'd delete the content outright rather than merge it. Aspirex (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though notability is not temporary, let's take a look and see if there is indeed lasting coverage. There is. The Huffington Post = over one year later. CNN, also about one year later. The Daily Telegraph, over one year later. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "coverage", Cirt? I can't speak about the HuffPo page (my browser refuses to play its video), but the CNN page includes a total of one sentence about this, as does the Telegraph article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, above, WP:NEVER applies here. — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here's what WP:NEVER currently tells us: A single event that receives coverage only for a short period of time and never again is usually not notable (though there are exceptions to the rule). If there is significant coverage for a long period of time, and the subject becomes a permanent fixture on at least some notable members of society, the subject is more likely to be notable. It seems to me that part of this suggests disagreement with you (unless a single sentence within each of two articles of moderate length constitutes "significant coverage") and part of it is gibberish. (Who are "notable members of society", and what does it mean for something to become "a permanent fixture on" such people?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete per Aspirex or redirect somewhere. That somewhere might be a trivia section of Christ the Redeemer (statue), or List of selfies or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet ephemera. As shown above, coverage that goes beyond the moment is limited to passing mentions. We could likewise briefly mention it somewhere appropriate, but not at the article level. Sandstein 19:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Belongs in tabloids, not an encyclopedia. Other "selfie" articles such as Monkey selfie are suitable because they raise concerns or otherwise have an effect, but this selfie is covered mostly because there are not enough stories to meet the quota. Esquivalience ^t 20:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anyone remember the dim distant past where we didn't have "selfies"? Yes, believe it or not, the wikipedia article selfie was only created 2.5 years ago, April 2013. Now this particular selfie falls far short of Tourist guy, but Cirt makes the best comment for keeping, i.e., subsequent mentions of the picture months after the original. But how are we to find this in future years? Is a List of notable selfies even feasible?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list of Wikipedia lists suggests that yes it's feasible. Indeed, I can easily imagine List of notable selfies taken atop tall structures, List of notable selfies of Kim Kardashian, List of notable selfie stick incidents, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying i want this but .... List of selfie-related injuries and deaths. haha.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterise "subsequent mentions" as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, though. I agree with Hoary that those brief subsequent mentions linked to aren't enough. Aspirex (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of the latest viral internet meme. If you need a policy to point to, try WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A selfie going viral is encyclopedic? When will people realize that not everything that makes it to the newspapers and / or internet is encyclopedic. I don't see any reason for this article to exist. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MLS Broadcasting

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

An owner of two small-town radio stations and nothing else. The stations each have their own articles. Raymie (t • c) 18:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. No reliable source coverage cited. Nothing found in searches beyond routine FCC database entries. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Exactly and there's simply no obvious signs of improving and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sundaykart

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not enough independent reliable coverage for this to pass WP:GNG. sst ✈ 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with this page, why you people recommended to Delete This, the data in this page has good Quality If Any one specify the Problem then any one may Correct the Page, Please Explain the Problem and provide any solution to for not to deletion of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalprince474 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Royalprince474 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No independent sources cited in the article, and scarcely any coverage in reliable independent sources found on searching. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy as there are simply no signs of better improvement and coverage but feel free to draft until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep The Article is good and the date about this article is true and genuine data, in feature some will do edits to improve this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.20.163 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 49.205.20.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep please keep this article i will provide the more Information regarding this article, thanq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalprince474 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Royalprince474 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep keep it any one may improve this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanendhra7 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Phanendhra7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy delete. spam for unnotable entity. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ So many improvements were done, Reference Links Added, Content Modified, category Added.. Keep the Article in database more improvements will done as per Wikipedia Norms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanendhra7 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have already told us once that you want the article kept. You are welcome to add further comments, but please don't post multiple bold "keep" notes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the notability guideline for web-specific content are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as A7 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rapper Rony

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

BLP created by the article subject. All sources are WP:USERGENERATED. No evidence of notability. sst ✈ 15:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC; all sources are self-published; self-promotional. --Drm310 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - About as notable as my left arse cheek!, Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete-non notable, I swear this was deleted recently, or maybe it was just prodded or CSD but not AFD. Wgolf (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article with the same title was speedied by User:Elockid last week as "creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Looks like User:Rajanthegame was blocked in August for promoting Rony at Rapper Rony (Musician), and User:Rapperrony, User:Rapperronyji and User:43.225.194.58 have all been block evading to recreate the article since. I'll flag the article for speedying. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete as this is quite obvious. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few hits on Google, no reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, the most promising source given - MTV.com - turns out to be written in lowercase with a footnote clarifying that it is "content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet". --McGeddon (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Las Piñas local elections, 2016

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

Non-notable local event. Articles such as this have already been deleted. KDS4444^Talk 15:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - supergabbyshoe

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Las Piñas has a population of over 500,000 and is far larger than many English districts and towns for which we have complete sets of election articles (e.g. Category:Council elections in Bolton Borough or Category:Tunbridge Wells Council elections (it is more than four times the size of Tunbridge Wells)), and on which there is consensus that the elections are notable. Deleting the Las Piñas article would be a clear case of systematic bias against non-English speaking countries. I have restored the speedily deleted Malabon article as the city is even larger, and the article is no different to East Hertfordshire District Council election, 2015. Number 5 7 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the basic requirements of WP:NEVENT and WP:V.--RioHondo (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caloocan local elections, 2016

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

Non-notable local event. Articles such as this have already been deleted. KDS4444^Talk 15:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - supergabbyshoe

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No comment for Las Piñas and Mandaluyong (probably delete until someone comes up with a good enough expansion), but both Makati and Caloocan has had election articles in the past that weren't AFDed and are still existing after two election cycles (2016 is the third one). –H T D 20:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Caloocan has a population of over a million, so I have no idea how local elections there cannot be considered notable. It is far larger than many English districts and towns for which we have complete sets of election articles (e.g. Category:Council elections in Bolton Borough or Category:Tunbridge Wells Council elections), and on which there is consensus that the elections are notable. Deleting this article would be a clear case of systematic bias against non-English speaking countries. I have restored the speedily deleted Malabon article as the city is even larger, and the article is no different to East Hertfordshire District Council election, 2015. Number 5 7 21:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the basic requirements of WP:NEVENT and WP:V.--RioHondo (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaluyong local elections, 2016

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

Non-notable local event. Article such as this have already been deleted. KDS4444^Talk 15:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - supergabbyshoe
Keep Mandaluyong is larger than many English districts and towns for which we have complete sets of election articles (e.g. Category:Council elections in Bolton Borough or Category:Tunbridge Wells Council elections (it is more than double the size of Tunbridge Wells)), and on which there is consensus that the elections are notable. Deleting the Mandaluyong article would be a clear case of systematic bias against non-English speaking countries. I have restored the speedily deleted Malabon article as the city is even larger, and the article is no different to East Hertfordshire District Council election, 2015. Number 5 7 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the basic requirements of WP:NEVENT and WP:V.--RioHondo (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makati local elections, 2016

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

Non-notable local event, other articles in this vein have been deleted in the recent past. Existing citations do not support a claim of notability to this event per se. KDS4444^Talk 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - supergabbyshoe
Delete - not notable Zezen (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No comment for Las Piñas and Mandaluyong (probably delete until someone comes up with a good enough expansion), but both Makati and Caloocan has had election articles in the past that weren't AFDed and are still existing after two election cycles (2016 is the third one). –H T D 20:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Makati is larger than many English districts and towns for which we have complete sets of election articles (e.g. Category:Council elections in Bolton Borough or Category:Tunbridge Wells Council elections (it is more than four times the size of Tunbridge Wells)), and on which there is consensus that the elections are notable. Deleting the Makati article would be a clear case of systematic bias against non-English speaking countries. I have restored the speedily deleted Malabon article as the city is even larger, and the article is no different to East Hertfordshire District Council election, 2015. Number 5 7 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the requirements of WP:NEVENT and WP:V. Elections in cities this size are definitely notable and are easily verifiable.--RioHondo (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Worth, Texas magazine

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

Non-notable magazine lacking non-trivial support reddogsix (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm even from this area and I see no better signs of immediate improvement so this may be a case of WP:TNT. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The magazine is certainly often quoted both in the news and in books, but expanding the search a bit to include e.g. the founders, more in-depth coverage is found missing, and I don't believe it can be sourced to meet WP:GNG/WP:NMAG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightguides

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:BAND. Sources are Facebook, blogs or passing mentions. Jbh ^Talk 14:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poor sources, showing lack of notability SallyDee777 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is obvious and when you basically only have Facebook as sources, chances are it is not an acceptable and improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If any of you four wanna move it I have no objections (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Literary festivals in india

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

None of the "references" in this article support a claim of notability for the subject of the article. Might be viable as a "List of literary festivals in India", but not a standalone article under this title. KDS4444^Talk 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List: This can be nice list class article. This list can be improved. There are many literary festivals in India. We can rename article to "List" as suggested by nominator. --Human3015^TALK 14:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as list. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under whatever name. It would be helpful as a way to simplify Literary festival. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list and rename. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Willing to userfy upon request. Jenks24 (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grisi group

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The only sources I can find are notes about acquisitions which fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Jbh ^Talk 14:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and that's unfortunate because for a company from 1863 that would seem notable but my searches simply found nothing so the last lifesaver for this would be hidden coverage. Draft and userfy if needed because there's simply nothing to suggest obvious keeping and improving. Pinging tagger Masssly. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find any sources at all. Its truly unfortunate but I Agree it should be deleted.—M@sssly ^✉ 16:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy - completely agree with SwisterTwister's comments. Seems a shame, but can't find any useful references. I suggest userfy because of the age of the company, perhaps there are offline sources an interested editor could gain access to. I looked on Newspapers (not Google Newspapers, but the subscription I have through Wikipedia), and got a single return, from a 1921 advertisement in the Laredo Times. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outlands (comic book series)

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

"Outland", a comic strip by Berke Breathed which is well-known and quite popular; "Outlands", a comic strip by Davidson and Feeney, I came up empty handed. Article currently has no citations of its own to indicate otherwise. KDS4444^Talk 14:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There don't seem to be any reliable sources available. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this comic book series is notable or even really anything to truly prove its existence other than this Wikipedia article. I don't think that it's a hoax, but very likely an independent comic or something that a couple of friends came up with as a concept one day. In any case, this is just not notable at this point in time. I wish them well, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawise Lestrange

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

I do not believe this person meets notability criteria. Yes their existence is documemted: so is mine. I know iis not a valid argument, but did this wmaon actually do anything of real interest? TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes documentation about this person exists - in reliable academic publications. This person was the wife of the King of Powys,a small, recognized kingdom in medieval Briton. This means she was the Queen, or Princess of the kingdom, which in its self should qualify her for Notability. Historic sources (my colleague should be providing sources shortly) also indicate that she played a significant role in the assassination of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, which addresses your other question about her interesting achievements. It's difficult to pin these points to existing notability criteria but i would suggest that there is a precedent for people of similar notability being included on Wikipedia. Jason.nlw (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was an important figure during her time period and the article itself adds to women's history in an area that is difficult to research. Also, the claim of nobility seems reasonable, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hawise is a well-documented medieval woman of the welsh marches, which in itself makes her both unusual and notable, given the difficulty of finding out about the lives of medieval women. However, she was also socially well-connected to English and Welsh elite and even royal families and was politically influential, as shown by her role in machinations against Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. She is well-attested in historical writing about medieval Wales, which demonstrates the importance that historians ascribe to her. Srbswansea Srbswansea (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You know I don't vote all that often on these, but I concur with the above comments. It's unusual for a medieval woman to be as well-documented as this one. Deb (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is essential we recognise individuals like Hawise Lestrange, who is not only well documented in contemporary records but is also the subject of important recent scholarship which clearly demonstrates her notability. She was actually more central to affairs than this entry (as yet) makes clear, and her appearance on Wikipedia helps to raise the profile of important medieval woman. Compare this with, for example, the entries for some of the more obscure Welsh princes of the age, where very little at all is known about them and yet they are allowed a presence on Wikipedia. There is no question that Hawise should stay, or that other women should join her. MedievalGirl —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Me again. Just to say, Hawise's profile now demonstrates her roles more fully, and more is to come. I reiterate my previous comment.MedievalGirl
Keep. Quite well referenced, encyclopedic and educational. — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Even if the author had not requested it would have come under CSD A7. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadish pattanayak

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

i did not want to create a page Jagadish992 (talk) 12:04, 16 October 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 October 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gowhar Naz

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

Article about a writer for a website; no reliable source referencing within or to be found. Also article started by the subject and edited by someone else with close connection to the subject. Was PRODded earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 10:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor state of article. Lacks references to meet notability.Pixarh (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a famous writer ; with reliable source references found. notable Must Keep; Deleting it is unfair & against Wikipedia policiesGowherNaz 10:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a famous newspaper writer ; many reliable source referencing found. Editing editors have no close connection to the subject. To keep it is my point; Improvements can be doneGowher]]Naz 1:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowher Naz (talk • contribs)
- Shouldn't be deleted. I suggest keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowher Naz (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am of the opinion keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowher Naz (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telling us four times that you want the article you created kept does not make your opinion carry any more weight than telling us once would have done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable with enough references meeting itnotability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.184.183 (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 223.225.184.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources that I could find. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as does not meet WP:GNG. The references are not useable for notability being pieces written by Naz and I have been unable to find anything else. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals at the Minnesota Zoo

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

Notability not established for this sublist. There are only 6 or so zoos / wildlife centres / similar with their own animal list on Wikipedia, and I'll prod the other ones (unless they have some real claim to notability as a list.) This one survived a prod in 2006, but I see no reason why the list of animals at a zoo would be a notable subject in most cases. Fram (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is cruftacular to the extreme. Is it an WP:ADVERT for the zoo in question? The opening line can belong in the main article - there is no need for this. Although on checking the article, it contradicts this total... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't conceive of any reason why the list of animals at this zoo, or likely any zoo, would have independent notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:LISTN. All zoos have animals, animals in zoos can and do change, and, in my view, lists of these sorts are undue trivia not worth even worth including in zoo articles (no merge or redirect warranted) let alone stand-alone lists. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. The only possible justification for a list like this is if the zoo had unique species or famous named animals. No Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing or Yetis here. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously? Pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Ali Awheela

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

I can find no sources for any of this, doesn't appear to pass the WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of -related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable or verifiable. Probably could've been prodded. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was prodded, so not clear why the AfD as no reliable sources have been added. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 14:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the notability criteria or GNG. Pixarh (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rector of a major and established university would be notable. Making up a name for a university and calling yourself rector of it after getting a doctorate from an online diploma mill (as seems closer to the case here) is not. And nothing else in the article gives even the appearance of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. : no significance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arunkumaarr

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

Autobio. 333 -blue 08:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: no significance. --Human3015^TALK 08:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Clayton

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

Local sourcing for a thinly to almost none notable musician with my searches simply finding nothing better than this so this seems to have been a case of one event coverage and, in the rare case the band is independently notable, an article for that could be started and this moved there but I doubt there's much for an article considering again this seemed to have been a local musician with some passing 2010 & 2011 coverage. Pinging the only still active users Whpq and Paste. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There really aren't many sources and as stated very local. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - few sources that are independent. Her band Room Full of Owls does also lack significant coverage in newspapers (as a google news search reveals). Sietecolores (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Wrong venue. Article has already been nominated for AFD. Jim Carter 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah offensive

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

Unworkable article name, trying to describe multiple events as one offensive. Content duplicates other articles. Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 16 October 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 October 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With one exception, nobody is for keeping, and the two "merge" opinions do not say where to. Sandstein 11:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah offensive

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

The title is unworkable. The content tries to call multiple offensives one offense. It duplicates Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015) and the Russian intervention articles. See further comments on talk page by others seeking deletion. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-notable WP:SYNTH.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Throwing "Un-notable WP:SYNTH" at it without explanation won't help it go away. I see no rationale there. The Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Iraqis and Hezbollah all call their Operation salvation something like this. The Syrians use Quartet front, which has a nice ring to it. Call it a front or an alliance or whatever, but it started at a different time from the Northwestern offensive which is a highly opinionated article based on the template and format of offensives prior to Russia, Iraqi and open Iranian coordination from a command centre in Baghdad. The Northwestern article is blatant spin, making it look like the offensive is ineffective and limited to the one front. Meanwhile Vladimir Putin is boasting and taunting the west with the results that even Western media is starting to admit.[13] This article covers material about the Homs offensive which doesn't have a page and is clearly different and has been very notable in the press yesterday. Also the coming (started already really) Aleppo offensive needs a page which this one starts to cover. Russian sources call it a combined offensive similar to the title and is the most workable for now until a better suggestion. [14] Guru Noel (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Noel is the article creator. The key sources, including the pravda source ^^^ are unreliable Russian, Syrian, and maybe Iranian government propaganda tools that can't be trusted. We don't accept reports of military action from these sources without backup sources. Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pravda source isn't in the article. How can it be WP:NPOV to accept reports of military action from the Eastern side of a war unless it's backed up by one from the Western side? Your comment is a total WP:NPOV scandal. Plus, the Eastern side has show the Western to be an unreliable sham and looks more likely of winning (getting peace) now so don't the victors get to write the history/Wikipedia and become the reliable ones now? Guru Noel (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because "western" sources like Reuters and AP are RS, they aren't state owned or essentially state owned, also this isn't a forum on your opinions about the Russian intervention, nor should the article be a way to incredibly push the Russian POV on the situation, although that seems to be what is happening anyway. This also has nothing to do with "the victors writing history" which also isn't how Wikipedia works, and even if the Russian's did win which hasn't been shown, that wouldn't make the non-RS sources suddenly RS. - SantiLak (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Syrian Civil War maps and articles there are strict rules. We don't accept any side's claims of success at capturing places or killing enemy leaders unless there is independant verification (SOHR for example) or the losing side acknowledges a city lost or leader killed. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western sources keep interviewing any old mercenary, ruffian "moderate terrorist" they can find on the ground and reporting them as reliable (a half hour before they run off and give ISIS all their guns). Sorry, but such sources are highly incompetent in my opinion. I would rather choose the state medias of constitutional democracies who's leaders millions people voted legally for as a little bit more factual, neutral and honest. Guru Noel (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artile is full of inaccurate and opinionated "facts" - like listing ISIS as a side opposing regime forces in this serioes of battles, when ISIS isnt involved at all, plus ignoring participation of rebel groups, which are hostile to ISIS.Rebell44 (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IS are all around Aleppo. [15] Russia has been hitting Raqqa since the start. [16] It seems you are completely brainwashed by the American regime and the one reporting inaccurate and opinionated "facts". Guru Noel (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Describing SOHR as 'independant' is jibbering derrangity. This article is unworkable, but it's cropped up because of the overwhelming bias of all syrian war articles, and the unwillingness of the wikipedia community to engage with them....essentially writing them off as not worth the hassle. It'd be better to dramatically cull syria war articles in general, and just have a very few where policies are actually enforced (such as RS, which, no, sohr isn't within a million miles of). 78.144.26.65 (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pov article with a pov title. A mere cursory glance at the mouthful of a title makes that clear. The content seems mostly cherry picked synthesis. Any actual offensive, or series of offensives, will have a proper name, not a made-up one like this, and can probably be covered in existing articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article covers only a small part the topic of the already existing article Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015) (which is much more comprehensive) and throws in several unrelated offensives hundreds of kilometers apart (one not even being government-initiated) in an OR and Synth manner, making it out as if its all one and the same operation (which is not). EkoGraf (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We do not need two articles on the same subject. The other article should be the target, but I am not prepared to comment on how much content should come from each. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At this stage, hard to see any tangible reasons for having 2 articles essentially covering the same unfolding event.Axxxion (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Aleppo offensive (October 2015), whose validity can be questioned in this discussion. It is just utterly unencyclopedic to create a new article virtually on a day of a new turn in the warfare.Axxxion (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Aleppo offensive article covers a topic/event that has been notable enough in the reliable media outlets to warrant its own article and has been a current event in the media for the last three days (and still is). In any case, that's a separate and different issue from the one we are currently discussing. At this point it seems most are for the deletion of this article or (per few others) merging relevant info (if any even exist) from this one to the comprehensive article on the ongoing Northwestern Syria offensive. In any case, except for the creator of this article, nobody is for its continuing existence. EkoGraf (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfigure this article definitely could work, but not in this form. Needs to be renamed, heavily edited and have all bias removed. --Schmeater (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All information in the article already covered in two other articles, and much more comprehensively, thus making it redundant as everyone else has said. Combining three different offensives into one is also unsourced OR. EkoGraf (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged Split off into Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq-Jordan Coalition, Aleppo offensive (October 2015), Homs offensive (October 2015), Daraa offensive (October 2015), Damascus countryside offensive (October 2015), Latakia offensive (October 2015) and Quneitra offensive (October 2015). Victors can go and continue writing there. Losers can continue moaning and trying to delete the stuff they don't like that doesn't match their POV. Guru Noel (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No administrative action is required here. Nobody proposed redlinking any title and there is no justification for deleting the page history. Whether or not the British and Candadian etc houses have sufficient commonality for an overarching article is not a question best resolved at AfD. SpinningSpark 09:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Commons

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

If someone wants the HoC in Britain or Canada, they'll probably get to this page and click the links in the specific bodies section to get to their house where they can get much more comprehensive detail into their HoC. This article just seems a bit redundant and prevents people from getting to the disambig page faster. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 18:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to House of Commons of England, as that is the organization that first used the term. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely most readers will be looking for House of Commons of the United Kingdom? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 18:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps simply go straight to the House_of_Commons_(disambiguation) page. It still plays a huge role in Canadian politics of course. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 20:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, neither the UK nor Canadian government has sufficient claim to be an indisputable WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, hence my proposed solution below, making this the disambiguation page. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was an attempt at finding an unambigious primary topic...Deleteing and moving House of Commons (disambiguation) here is a better idea, though redirecting to the disambiguation page would work as well. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and then move House of Commons (disambiguation) to this title. Fundamentally, that's what this is already: a disambiguation page, albeit one that's not at all compliant with WP:DABMOS. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - This is effectively a wordy disambiguation page when we already have a disambiguation page. Agree with the above: delete and move House of Commons (disambiguation) into its place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to keep in an effort to have this closed with consensus. As I say below, I don't have a strong opinion as to which we keep. It seems unusual to have what is effectively a disambiguation page contain so much prose, but that it's non-standard doesn't necessarily mean it's problematic, and it still does the same job, more or less. Will redirect the disambig to this title when it's closed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page seems fine as the title should clearly be a blue link. It's the rival House of Commons (disambiguation) title that can be dispensed with. Andrew D. (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a very strong opinion as to which we keep. My choice for the other one is more or less based on my impression that disambiguation pages (which this is and should be) shouldn't also be articles (effectively). Am I wrong about that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly pruning it). At the very worst we need to keep this as a dab-page. Details of the history of the British HoC (such as the subject of rotten boroughs) would be better dealt with in the article on the UK House of Commons. However, an article on all of them together, if brief and leading to more specific main articles is useful. Redirect House of Commons (disambiguation) here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to move the existing dab page to this title. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and delete House of Commons (disambiguation), per WP:DABCONCEPT. Too much information is lost from the encyclopedia if this is deleted. bd2412 T 16:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep, and delete House of Commons (disambiguation). There are plenty of sources that compare the parliamentary systems in Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. (like this source). All this article needs is a few citations, but deletion is not the way to go. Wikipedia's deletion policy states that "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" (see WP:ATD). This is a clearly a case where we should focus on improvement rather than deletion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does Australia have to do with this? It doesn't have a house of commons. Srnec (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, the article discusses "[r]oughly equivalent bodies," including the "Australian House of Representatives". I simply included the source above as one example of the numerous sources that compare parliamentary governments that utilize a House of Commons or an equivalent form of legislature. For a straight comparison of British and Canadian Houses of Commons, see this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong article for that. We have Westminster system for that job. We also have lower house and bicameralism. What we have here is a glorified dab page, like House of Representatives. They should be pared to down to simple dab pages, since all that the various entities have in common (and distinct from like things) is the same exact name. Srnec (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with how the Australian government works, so you may be correct that comparisons in this article are unwarranted. However, it looks like the various Houses of Commons discussed in this article share much more than a name. Apparently, they share common historical antecedents in the English Parliament, they share similar functions, they share some procedures, and they share similar duties to the electorates in their respective countries. But the important consideration for the purposes of this AfD is that there are sufficient sources discussing their shared history and functions. See this source, this source, this source, this source, and this article that discuss the relationships between various Houses of Commons. Per WP:GNG, "[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect House of Commons (disambiguation) to House of Commons, and move the DAB page content to House of Commons (per Peterkingiron's suggestion above). WP:DABNAME states that the disambiguation page name should be that of the ambiguous topic unless there's a clear primary topic. I think we're agreed that there isn't a primary topic in this case, and that the page shouldn't have any content other than the standard disambiguation elements. Neither page needs to be deleted for this. Tevildo (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo, why do think the page shouldn't have any content? Per WP:GNG, "[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I have listed plenty of reliable, verifiable sources (see above) that discuss the shared history and function of the various Houses of Commons. A simple google search will reveal many more sources. I think a good analogy for how to proceed here would be to follow the model used article for senates. There are many senates around the world, but there are also enough reliable, verifiable sources about the common features of senates to justify a standalone article. At the bottom of the article for senate, there is a list of the various senates around the world. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is an acceptable approach for articles such as Senate and National Assembly, where the term is both widely-used and has a clear historical background. However, I wouldn't consider "House of Commons" to be an equivalent term, as it's not a widely-used name for legislative assemblies - "the various Houses of Commons" is really just the UK and Canada, rather than a more general concept. I would put any shared history between the UK and Canadian houses into the individual articles, and any more general history of equivalent bodies into Lower house. Tevildo (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to House of Commons (disambiguation). Agree with Tevildo immediately above: it makes sense to have a generic article about lower houses of parliament in the same way it makes sense to have a generic article about senates, but this article doesn't fall into that category – it just covers the couple of lower houses that happen to be called the 'House of Commons'. Aspirex (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think anyone is proposing that the article itself should be deleted, making House of Commons a redlink. The issues are:

(a) Should House of Commons contain substantial content, or just be a standard disambiguation page?

(b) If it's to be a disambiguation page, should it be at House of Commons or House of Commons (disambiguation)?

No admin action should be required to implement any of these solutions, and, if we decide to convert the existing article to a dab page, I see no objection to keeping the current page content in the edit history. Perhaps the article talk page is a better place for this discussion. Tevildo (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 07:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and delete the DAB page, as per several other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replace the content of this page with that of House of Commons (disambiguation), and then make that page redirect to this one. (Usually one bolds "Keep" or "Delete" or so on, but in this case I'm not sure which word best describes my proposed solution.) The problem with the current article, is it suggests that the "House of Commons of the UK" and the "House of Commons of Canada" have something in common, beyond having the same name, which they do not also have in common with other legislative bodies without that name, which is not true. The mere fact that Canada chose to stick with the "House of Commons" name, but other Dominions went with a different name, doesn't make the Canadian body more like the British one than (for example) the Australian or New Zealand equivalents. SJK (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After improvements by Michig and Fayenatic London, now does not qualify for BLP Prod, and passes notability requirements, consensus is keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Kleiman

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this but I'm still not sure if that would be enough improvement especially considering I'm not seeing much else (this also hasn't changed much since starting in February 2008). Pinging B, Klemen Kocjancic, Fayenatic london, Portnadler, Werldwayd, Geniac and DJ Clayworth. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage around with which the article can be improved, e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely unsourced BLP. While some of the references Michig gave do appear to demonstrate notability, in order for this article to be retained, the references need to be incorporated into the article. Unsourced BLPs are obviously unacceptable and if this article had been created two years later, it would be subject to summary deletion. --B (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If it had been created two years later it would have been subject to BLP Prod, not summary deletion. --Michig (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rescue~~. Years ago I proposed deletion; it was de-prodded with neither explanation nor action to improve it. However, I came to the view that the subject probably is notable, so the page needs WP:RESCUE rather than deletion. – Fayenatic London 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- now, Keep. Thank you, Michig. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elahi Ardabili

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

My searches simply found nothing obvious so I'm not entirely sure if he actually existed and the only imaginable would likely be archived and not easily accessible (given this subject's alleged age). Pinging tagger Bender235 and Calamondin12. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uninformed editing has badly distorted this article since its initial creation — what were clearly marked as Islamic Calendar dates have been relabeled as CE and the date annotation "Hegira" has been reinterpreted as a place name. I think I've fixed the worst of it but I still can't figure out who the subject is; the name is too generic and the variations in transliterating names too great. So we have no sources and (unless someone who actually knows this subject comes along to help, as has not happened in the 7 years this article has existed) little hope of finding any. As such, it fails WP:V, despite describing accomplishments which should be notable if only we could source them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY now that the subject has been properly identified and sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, since I was pinged. The article doesn't meet our quality standards, but I'm not enough of an expert in the field to know whether the subject merits an article at all. --bender235 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The question is not the quality of the article but the notability of the subject. Philosophy in early Safavid Iran by Reza Pourjavady describes Kamal al-din al-Ilahi al-Ardabili as educated in Ardabil under Ali al-Amuli, then under the Safavid Sultan Haydar, then in Shiraz under Jalal al-Din al-Dawani. It can be seen that this exactly matches what is stated in the article, albeit with very different transliterations of the names. I do not doubt, therefore, that the article describes this scholar from Iran. The next step should be to ask a Farsi speaker to locate some more sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following Chiswick Chap's identification of a fairly obviously reliable source and its addition to the article. Other reliable sources are almost certain to exist, though they may well not be in English. PWilkinson (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McArthurGlen Designer Outlet Vancouver Airport

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

non notable shopping centre. Consists of a list of stores and no reason it is notable. noq (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Usual links with News, Books, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for (1) failure to have a claim of notability and (2) lack of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The mall passes WP:CORPDEPTH. It has received significant news coverage in national Canadian sources, such as The Globe and Mail, Globalnews.ca, Globalnews.ca, and regional coverage as per The Vancouver Sun, BC Business. There is also local coverage, such as The Georgia Straight. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NA1k. The article needs to be TNTed, since it is basically a directory in its current state, but the topic meets GNG. sst ✈ 14:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with the other two keeps. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eddie and Sol Zakay. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Zakay

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

Article about one individual already covered by Eddie and Sol Zakay and doesn't substantially add anything as subject isn't really notable outside Topland Group, the company he runs with his brother Eddie. Had nominated for WP:A10 but was declined by a mysterious IP. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sol Zakay page should be kept because he is a separate person from Eddie Zakay. There is additional information about Sol Zakay on the page - regarding his support of Arsenal and his interest in football as well as his charitable giving which is distinct from that of his brother. A different page could be created for Eddie Zakay and the page EDDIE AND SOL ZAKAY could be deleted. This could make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBarker (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC) HBarker (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and hopefully it'll stay that way until a more solid separate article can be made as it simply seems he's best known as part of the group and the company. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the pair, or make separate article for each and delete the combination article. There's no point having it both ways . DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armchair Arcade

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no in-depth coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Most hits are either affiliated with the site's owner or attributing the origin of a story. Its main claim to fame was being named in a PC Mag 2005 listicle. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 14:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing better than a few links at Books, browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete David Condrey ^{log talk} 23:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drop me a note on my talk page and I'll consider salting it if anyone feels strongly about it. Funny to see what they used to a decade ago to salt pages before create protection. Jenks24 (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Lara

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

Procedural for IP, as per usual I have no option on notability. shoy (reactions) 13:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP's comments:

I didn't expect this.Recreated after 10 years.--112.79.35.24 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article text appears to be a poor machine-translation of the main sections in es:Marvin_Lara. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect if necessary as I found nothing at all and with the Spanish Wiki exactly the same, that one needs to go as well. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't found anything substantial either under the subject's given name or DJ Lara (noting that others also use that name professionally so there are false positives). The two given references from Guatamala sources in 2010 are brief pieces relating to a charity event; they don't in my view substantiate notability per WP:MUSICBIO ot WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any in-depth coverage to show they would meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xosse de Sade

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

My searches simply found nothing to suggest better improvement and none has happened since starting in August 2008. Notifying author Artxprt. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; lack significant coverage. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PowerMark Group

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

Seemingly open and shut case of a local non-notable company with my best search results here and here and the awards are unlikely to be enough to save this article and lastly this has gotten few edits since starting in March 2008. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The awards (those that don't get 404) all appear to be of the type "pay and win and promote" - that is, they exist to allow companies to say that they have won an award. The Stevie awards give well over 100 awards each year. The others it was less clear, but they all emphasized using the award for business promotion. Other than that, I can find the company listed on social sites and sites that serve as business directories. There were a few Bloomberg articles, but these were written by a company officer. That said, the company (if it is the same company) has offices in the UK and Australia and perhaps other countries, so there may be more information that I'm not seeing. LaMona (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. trivial awards, and no significant notability in any respect. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Hernandez

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

The article would certainly need improvement if kept and my searches found nothing to suggest better than this, this and this. For what it's worth, the current article is borderline speedy and but I nominated it for comments. Pinging past users MER-C, C.Fred and StAnselm. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tagged the article for notability back in 2011, but I don't have a good feel for notability in fashion design, so I'm not really able to give an informed opinion. St Anselm (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has gone years without improvement. That tells me that the sources just aren't there, so it can be deleted for failing to meet the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep Hmmm. My gut says that notability can probably be proved, and there's evidence that sources do exist. On the designer's press page, I do see a few scans of articles that are focused on her and her work, such as [25]. She has been the subject of articles in Elle [26], and I see regular ongoing coverage over three years in Mexico Vogue on a Google search. I see this, and investigation suggests that that website is published under editorial control. Over the last few years I see plenty of coverage and commentary on her work in the established fashion press - Vogue, Elle, etc - a great indicator of notability for a fashion designer. To be fair at this point she's not exactly inspiring me to try saving her article, but it seems clear that someone could produce a much better article on her, especially if they can read the Spanish-language sources. Mabalu (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wales Air Network

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

Wales Air Network (WAN) were never official or noteworthy and has not actually existed for some time, not sure it is (or ever has been) worthy of a wikipedia page. The page was set up more as an advert rather than a usefeul educational entry. CloudSurferUK (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 04:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no improvement here with my best search links here. Pinging past user Deb. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately. Love Wales stuff, but there is simply not enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article. Best was a couple of semi-nice hits on Highbeam. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anuraag Pandey

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

A radio jockey (Mumbaikars might know him as Picture Pandey) and cameo artist in some films fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Can't find much in RS to establish GNG. The sources currently used radioandmusic.com is part of Indiantelevision.com, which is a promotional site and notability of it has been questioned many times on wiki and consensus has been that it is non-RS. (Personally I would use these sites only for referring trivial things, like personal information through interviews published there; but not to establish notability.) Side note: The article is suspected of being created from COI editors/PR agency/cooperative editing - COI Noticeboard entry. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as aside from a few links here and there, there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches turned up no in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwills Group

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

Does not meet WP:CORP. Poorly sourced article. Ref #2 appears to be in part an interview (this ref) - most paragraphs starting with "Saw said", "Saw Noted", and "He revealed", "Saw/he" being the companies CEO. Tried googling for news sources but just found name drops (well, one - there were others that seem unaffiliated with "Rockwills Group" that were still name drops). -- Kethrus |talk to me 03:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 03:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found some links with News and browser but nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. total failure of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Shawe

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

Not notable. Every one of the references is essentially a disguised or direct press release. Being cited in a list of "40 under 40" or other list of junior achievers is essentially equal to" not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely unless redirecting to the company seems best as "Phil Shawe TransPerfect" found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but nothing considerably better. Pinging past users Mdann52 (who it accepted at AfC), PamD, Josve05a, Jonesey95 and Samwalton9. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps Redirect to TransPerfect and do similarly for Liz Elting, the co-founder. (My only input was to stub-sort him shortly after artice creation). PamD 07:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the edit history of TransPerfect is interesting, with repeated IP removal of sourced content about a legal spat between the founders. (The last revision restored this, I suspect accidentally, along with matter which had been removed as "promotional fluff".) PamD 07:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion from this gnome editor, but thanks for the ping. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many businesses use Wikipedia as a "Who's Who." I don't think this person is particularly notable. If this article is deleted, the Liz Elting article should be deleted as well. She is Shaw's business partner in Transperfect. Chisme (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Ranch

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

The page does not cite any sources; is poorly written and organized; may only be notable for the one event of Lamar Odom's overdose. Thus, I propose deletion. This page could also be merged into the Bunnyranch parent page. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just have to modify search parameters, examples at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article has existed since 2006 and no one has added reliable cites or improved quality of article. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. — Cirt (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Cirt's points. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw. Please close this discussion. I would if I knew how. --JumpLike23 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Yuhico

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

This is a contested PROD. As I said in the prod nomination, playing in the Philippine league does not satisfy the notability requirements in WP:NFOOTY. Being picked in a national futsal team may be a claim to notability, but I cannot find anything beyond a few routine mentions so there is not enough to satisy WP:GNG. Based on the username of the author, it is quite possible that the author is the subject. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: doesn't playing for a national futsal team guarantee notability in the same way that it does for a national football team appearance? Spiderone 10:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: - no, it does not. Same goes for 5-a-side or beach soccer. Giant Snowman 10:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability requirements for a footballer. Can be recreated if and when he does pass. Spiderone 14:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - domestic career fails WP:NFOOTY, international career is not covered by NFOOTY, but fails [[W{:GNG]]. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Amos

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

Actor with very questionable notability-also a auto bio Wgolf (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was able to verify the award here, so this could probably give some notability but not enough to keep on that basis alone. The coverage of this is fairly light, though, so I'll need to do some more research before I'd be comfortable saying that it absolutely would give partial notability on here, as Wikipedia is fairly strict about what awards it considers notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His roles are all minor and he hasn't received any coverage for his acting career. He's predominantly known for his book, which other than the Heritage Toronto Award, hasn't received any notice from places Wikipedia would consider reliable. The award does look to be somewhat discerning, but the coverage for it is incredibly light and would not be the type that would give absolute notability, meaning a keep on the award alone. He is related to notable people, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and this did not translate into any coverage for Amos. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - non-notable bio listed at BLP noticeboard as created by subject of the bio. Original Research non-notable bio, self published sources. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Tedford

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

Non-notable politician, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL specifically. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor of a town of 8K, with not nearly enough substance or sourcing to qualify him for a "more notable than the norm for small-town mayors" exemption from the 50K standard. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small-town mayor. NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bianco di Lierna

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

Apparently totally non-notable wine or grape variety (our article is not clear which, or if both). The village of Lierna lies within the Indicazione geografica protetta of the Terre Lariane (on which we should, but apparently do not, have an article). As far as I can see, "Bianco di Lierna" is not mentioned in:

Burton Anderson (1980). Vino (my personal bible)
Joseph Bastianich, David Lynch (2012). Vino Italiano: The Regional Wines of Italy
The Buying Guide by the same authors
Luca Pollini (2004) Tutto Vino: guida completa ai vini d'Italia (published by the Enoteca Italiana of Siena, a national institution)
Domenico Aragona (2001). I vini d'Italia. Conoscerli, degustarli, abbinarli
Alexis Lichine (1987). Alexis Lichine's New Encyclopedia of Wines & Spirits
Hugh Johnson (2010). Hugh Johnson's Pocket Encyclopedia of Wine 2001

As mentioned by FactStraight here, there seems to have been recent substantial and unencyclopaedic promotion of the village of Lierna and anyone and everything remotely associated with it. Given the total lack of coverage and the fact that the image illustrating the article is of vines growing at Birnau, Germany, on the shores of Lake Constance, the possibility of an outright hoax can't be completely discounted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly no coverage, and probably a hoax. Nice work Justlettersandnumbers. No mention of a grape varietal in the two cited Italian books from 1829 and 1817. Yes, in th 1800s they grew grapes there and made wine from them. The wine had a nicely sharp taste (al sapor graziosamente tagliente). Editor Alec Smithson who created this article is also the one who added all the wine and vineyard stuff to the Lierna article both here and on the Italian Wikipedia, and some on the French, Spanish and German Wikipedias. His edits to the Lierna article on the Polish Wikipedia were reverted, but were about films not wine. He added a Bianco di Lierna‎ article on the French Wikipedia, but not (yet?) on the German, Polish or Spanish. --Bejnar (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or revise lead. The lead says the article is about a variety of grape, but the entire body of the article doesn't say anything about a grape. The article could be re-cast as an article about a wine growing region, if the region has any notability, but it certainly isn't about a grape. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verification that they grow grapes there - yes, substantive coverage as a wine growing region - no. --Bejnar (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already an article about the village of Lierna, as noted above. As also noted, this article is not about the grape, as beyond the lead, it spends its time on the village. No sources found. The mislabeled photo is highly suggestive of a hoax, as I would have expected the enology sources noted to have mentioned the grape or at least the region, yet they do not. Non-notable at best and more likely a fabrication. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show notability of this varietal. Cannot speak to whether or not it's a hoax, but definitely not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John Rampton. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Marketing for Professionals

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable book. Ireneshih (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are overhyped PR "reviews" and interviews. No independent in-depth coverage. The overly detailed author biographies, and statements like "The book contains 136 pages and 14 chapters, each divided into individual topics.", are just fillers with trivial information. The article is also most likely a re-creation based on the deleted version. GermanJoe (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to John Brampton for now? Until a better article can be made at least. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with redirect. The main topic is only barely more notable, but at least it survived an AfD as "no consensus". GermanJoe (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect This book isn't notable yet. The one source that could look to be both reliable and about the book is a blog, not Adweek itself. valereee (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Rampton. Not enough coverage to show notability of book at this time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dramas

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

Probably non-notable American indie rock band; orphaned SPA-created article from 2006. No significant Google hits (although it's difficult to look for "The Dramas").Their MySpace page has only 10 songs in 3 years and almost no other info (looks long abandoned). The occasional usage of their songs in 2 TV series doesn't establish notability. Both members individually don't seem notable either on a quick Google search of their names. GermanJoe (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means and this is easily A7 and PROD material as most these articles which I have been hunting for and my searches found...absolutely nothing. As I have noticed, this is very common from this starting time as several people added their band or a fan added it and it may not even be active and exist anymore and the non-notability seems obvious here. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe Bossier City

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

Non-notable casino; only "source" is casino's own website. Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as articles such as these are not easy to evaluate as they will not get much coverage especially given its field. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and Swister. Searches turned up nothing to show this casino is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source other than own website. Can't we just speedy this? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not clear why the subject is notable. Just another casino / hotel doing regular business. Appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Subaie

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm renominating this with the exact same nomination information so hopefully we can get a consensus or else I may simply PROD it and, if he's notable, it can be restarted later. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 1 October 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 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : IMDB was used as an indication of Rafiq Subaie not being notable but there are more than 200 state on this earth and an actor doesnt have to be notable in the English speaking world to be actually notable.

He is a Syrian actor and if someone want more information about him then he really needs to look in sources written in Arabic.

This is an interview with Rafiq Subaie in SKY News where he is described as on of the founders of Syria's acting movement.

This is his entry on MBC one of the Arabic-speaking world biggest networks.

This is an interview with As-Safir, where he is described as the artist of the people which is what Syrians call him.

This is the site of the Syrian Arab News Agency (Syria's official news agency). It is talking about Rafiq Subaie in English.

This is a book by professor Rebecca Joubin, an assistant professor and chair of Arab studies at Davidson College. She is explaining Subaie's role in Syria's early TV (In English).

This is a copy from an article that appeared in Gulf News (in English). I quote : (Visibly absent were big names and pioneers of Syrian cinema like Duraid Lahham, Rafiq Sibayi, and Muna Wassef).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing but brief mentions. No independent, in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this ? Discover-Syria is an independent site and one of the biggest in Syria. Yes, he is not notable in the US or the English-speaking world and will never be and doe not need to be. Hope that the admin who will decide can read Arabic.

This is the site of the Syrian Ministry of Culture and its talking about the honoring of Rafiq by the Syrian president with the highest level of the Order of Civil Merit

How much notable does he need to be ? if all this doesnt make him notable (being known by 320 million Arabic speaker) then what does ? Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about 10 class American actors who probably made a cameo or two in some unknown movie !!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Robertson (gymnast)

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

Questionable notable gymnast who only seemed to have participated with the Scottish national team twice and my searches found no immediately obvious sourcing aside from a few links here. There's also no obvious move target but I would imagine an article such as List of Scottish national team gymnasts would be a good target. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources in the article are to dead webpages, so cannot tell if extensive coverage is from those. Google search provides little. Did not compete in the 2006 Commonwealth Games (what I would think is the biggest competition for a Scotland gymnast during his time of competition). Does not appear to meet anything under WP:NGYMNAST. Nothing seems out there to say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would think that if some of the assertions made in the article were true there would be more coverage. Did not find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and no assertion he passes WP:NGYMNAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Sowell

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable. Every reference is either not independent, or a mere notice (or both). Nothing more would be expected, because none of her positions are notable by any reasonable standard. Vice-chairman of a state agency is not generally notable.

The previous afd was closed as keep only for a technical reason: the nom was a banned sock. I was previously threatened by a self-declared employee of her agency that I would be reported and all my articles deleted if I attempted to remove the article on her or any other employee of that agency [27] (that account was of course blocked some time ago) To be fair, it was someone else entirely who wrote the article. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm not seeing any obvious improvement here. Pinging user ElKevbo. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on searches to show it passes notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerto Signage

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

Fails google test. I dream of horses (C) @ 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand what `fails google test` means? There are a handful of non-concerto-owned links on the first page of web search results for "Concerto Signage". Google Scholar also brings up at least 2 journal entries which discuss Concerto. Bamnet (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :@Bamnet:I would assume I dream of horses is applying something along the lines of the "notability" test mentioned in Wikipedia:Search_engine_test. A quick glance at the Google results reveal nothing amiss, though "Concerto" is word in regular use, and the results will need to be viewed with that in mind. Certainly, a diversity of sources (beyond a search for a common word) and an evaluation of the citations should be used in this determination.

Overall, Concerto Signage would seem no more or less notable than Dokuwiki or the plethora of other open-source software projects included in Wikipedia and I'm unable to find any grounds in the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines for non-inclusion. The "orphan" tag would also appear not to apply here, as the page is linked from the RPI TV page as well as the Concerto (disambiguation) page (though that hardly counts).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software, fails to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Most sources are either "forums" or the copany's. Others do not rise to the level of sigfificance. See also the informative essay Wikipedia:Notability (software). IP editor 69.204.153.39 is incorrect, it is not guidelines for non-inclusion, it is guidelines for inclusion, and this topic does not meet those guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: Sorry if my sentence structure was a bit confused. I was simply saying that in reading the guidelines, I found none that seemed problematic in this case. But this is obviously a subjective process, and I certainly fall in the minority inclusionist camp, as I found the deletion of the list of signage systems to be over-the-top. As I alluded to earlier, it would be best if people with an interest in the open-source software area of Wikipedia take up this question within the context of the open-source software Wikipedia already lists, since notability standards vary widely by topic area (rare bird species tend not to get the best SEO treatment).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many things may be appropriately mentioned with citation in a broader article and do not require their own article. This I believe is one of them. It does not have very much coverage at all in indedependent reliable sources. Coverage in several different computer magazines is a good basic "rule of thumb" for software notability, but enough academic coverage (not usage) may also suffice. Beware of poor arguments such as Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and those listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If this topic interests you, you might consider working on the Digital signage article which is not in the best of shape. --Bejnar (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: If it's one thing Wikipedia has a complete list of, it's endless arguments on both sides of deletionism/inclusionism. But I will say that if an encyclopedia deigns to have articles on a certain topic, a consistent standard (erring towards liberality) ought to be in effect, such that topics that made it in the initial "Wiki land rush" don't crowd out newer and equally relevant/notable topics in the area concerned (free/open-source software in this case). Incidentally, citing the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists page itself: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged."

I would broadly agree with your notion of notability, but "computer magazines" would not be a sensible criterion; they're little more than informational advertising in 2015 and most of what they cover would not be in Wikipedia as it stands presently. Perhaps better would be to say publications (online or off) of an editorial or descriptive nature. I had briefly considered doing something with the Digital signage article, but it's little more than a lot of industry-specific pabulum trying to sell enterprise software. It really doesn't describe any digital signage systems at all, and is concerned with it in a conceptual sense exclusively.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: are you seriously stating that "computer magazines" should take precedence over academic source? This is backwards. Computer magazines can count as reliable sources for software, but that doesn't mean all other sources that are normally considered top-notch on Wikipedia stop counting. WP:NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and WP:N certainly overrides any part of it that may seem to make notability of an article less attainable than under normal standards. LjL (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LjL: No, I was making the distinction between academic coverage as opposed to academic usage of the software. The second results in brief mentions in academic articles, rather than substantive coverage. I certainly do give substantive coverage precedence over mere mention, regardless of the other attributes of reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: I agree with coverage vs usage, but I was concerned with the wording that magazine coverage was a good rule of thumb while enough academic coverage may also suffice (my emphasis), as if implying that "enough" may not be enough when it comes to academic sources. LjL (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LjL: No such intention. The verb "may" goes to both parts of the sentence hence the use of the word "also". The call is always a subjective one, see e.g. the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 6 of the Jacques Peretth article. --Bejnar (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid our discussion here has roamed well beyond the question at hand. There is no particular debate as to whether the article is in scope (WP:Wikipedia is not), verifiable (WP:Verifiability), or in possession of reliable sources (WP:Reliable Sources). The issue at hand is notability (WP:Notability). I've made some relativist arguments above as to why I see this as notable in the given category, but urge others to make their views known.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As no one else has jumped in, either to point out the hasty nature (~2 mins) of the nomination (ignoring WP:BEFORE) or answer the creator's simple question, I've done a little searching for sources: ACM: Concerto-Digital Signage on the Cheap, Design and Implementation of Scalable Multimedia Signage (Cited 3 times), 17 Slices Of Raspberry Pi For Digital Signage,Open Source Systems Applications (TCNJ), Independent thesis-Digital screen for appointments and employees, Digital Signage Systems (AALL Spectrum) , Conducting a Digital Signage CONCERTO (Presentation given to Association of Independent Kentucky Colleges and Universities), Raspberry Pod: Concerto – open source digital signage..., and Tech At Last: Digital Signage Software. These are of course in addition to the already ample magazine and other published links the article itself offers.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here's a paper about this software: Swatling, Todd. Concerto: digital signage on the cheap. Proceedings of the 41st annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User services. doi:10.1145/2504776.2504784. - LjL (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed that Swatling article has been mentioned before, above, by IP editor 69.204.153.39, and is a step towards notability, unfortunately the rest that the IP editor mentioned did not contain substantive coverage of Concerto Signage, The second article Design and Implementation of Scalable Multimedia Signage did not mnetion Concerto Signage at all. The three sentences of Haynes's 17 Slices Of Raspberry Pi For Digital Signage did not add much. Open Source Systems Applications (TCNJ) simply cites Concerto once without dicussion. The Master's thesis at [Digital screen for appointments and employees added essentially nothing. Conducting a Digital Signage CONCERTO is an eight slide power point presentation with minimal content. Like Haynes, Digital Signage Systems (AALL Spectrum) simply lists it. Raspberry Pod: Concerto – open source digital signage... documents the release of two usage videos. Finally, Tech At Last: Digital Signage Software provides four sentences in a list of such software. Altogether not very much. The proper place for mention of Concerto Signage, if at all, is in the article on digital signage. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I had not noticed that link was already covered, but I did seem to notice that that list of sources given was more looks than substance (even though I personally lean towards inclusion). I guess at least by duplicating it I've made the one relevant source stand out more, which can't be bad. LjL (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all of the above sources, but I think you may have overlooked the content of some because they are behind paywalls. I was able to secure a copy of the Swatling paper, but my limited Google Cache explorations on some of the others suggest that their non-abstract text seems to be more substantive than you suggest. I wouldn't want to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I believe it bears repeating that for a piece of web software to have any scholarly mention is remarkable, certainly more remarkable than the unspeakably bad digital signage article, whose sources are primarily industry ad literature. I must also reiterate the phenomenally bad faith with which this article was nominated -- by a serial deletionist 2 minutes after submission who declined the editor/creator even the most basic of courtesy during a now 2-week discussion. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I forgot about the paywall(s). And as I say, I do lean towards inclusionism, what with that third-party conference paper specifically about the software. LjL (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Llewellyn

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as the mayor of a small town with a population of just 600 and as an unsuccessful candidate for the leadership of a political party. Neither of these is a claim that gets a person over WP:NPOL — and while there is reliable source coverage here, it's all local and there isn't enough of it to get him over WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing much better here. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junsuke kinoshita

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

Article Kinoshita Junsuke was originally deleted 11 Nov. 2014 under BLPPROD and then recreated the next day by an SPA under the current title. A citation was added, so it could no longer be PRODed, but that link no longer works. The content of the article largely matches the subject's personal website ([28]) and could be considered a copyright violation. I can determine that he did show a short film at the Tokatsu Film Festival (a small local festival in Japan) [29], but the site doesn't make clear if he won an award or not. The Russian wiki article on him (ru:Киносита,_Дзюнсукэ) has the assertions about success at some Japanese film festival in Moscow tagged for problems. His Japanese wikipedia article was deleted in 2011 for lack of notability ([30]). It seems he has also published a DVD on feng shui ([31]), and filmed a documentary about the dancer Iwata Morihiro ([32]), but there seem to be no independent RS out there discussing these. The only article I can find on him in Japanese is this (an interview: [33]), but it does not seem to be a reliable source. Perhaps there is something out there in Russian, but I can't find it. In short, this seems to be self-promotion of a figure who does not pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now if there are simply no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, this article does not appear to satisfy the basic notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles. --DAJF (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing from independent sources to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Word-for-word copyvio of the subject's home page [34] Even has copyright symbol on the page (not a CC license) LaMona (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been marked for CSD for copyvio. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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