Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 September	20 September >

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. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equate (iPhone game)

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

Article about software which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. I would have applied a CSD #A7 but it does not apply to software. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wasn't able to find anything from the WP:VG/RS custom searches and more normal searches on Google came up with nothing that could be deemed reliable. Google hits come up with just user reviews, which don't pass the notability threshold. Nomader (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This exists and can be downloaded, but that does not make the game notable in and of itself. I can't find where this game has received any coverage in media outlets or any place that Wikipedia considers reliable. To be honest, I can't really see where anyone has covered this game at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence in WP:RS that this passes WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG --Jersey92 (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails general guideline for notability as well as WP:NSOFTWARE. Wikipedia is not a directory of every bit of software. Edison (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now but feel free to draft and userfy as my searches found nothing to suggest better sourcing and coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Károly Huber

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

Non-notable scholar by WP:ACADEMIC. Apparently not at any notable university. All sources in the article are Hungarian (i.e., hard to verify), and seemingly written by the subject himself. Also note that the Hungarian Wikipedia had an article on this subject deleted in 2011. And finally, note that article creators Tibitoma~enwiki and Vitamax are single-purpose accounts. bender235 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacking reliable sourcing as most sources are from subject himself; also clearly a promotional article, bordering on idolatry (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vitamax, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tibitoma~enwiki). Quis separabit? 18:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Howell

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

Neither notable under WP:ACADEMIC (apparently adjunct faculty at DeVry University from 2006 to 2011) or WP:ATHLETE (non-notable instructor). Article creator Hewoods is a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is more like an academic resume and then jumps into judo. A self promo piece. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no notability as a professor or instructor, and possible conflict of interest = delete. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although I found some links at Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Non-notable as martial artist - basically a promo piece.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage of any kind.Jakejr (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is, at worst, a case of no consensus, defaulting to keep--but this leans toward keep already, certainly without strong "delete" arguments. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bönz Malone

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

This seems like an open and shut case of non-notability regarding our standards and no signs of improvement with my best search results here, here and here and I actually found this article because the subject had added unsourced information. Please note that the originl author, an SPA account, had very few contributions (seems to have been a juvenile) and is now locked from editing and Bonz Malone will also have to be deleted. Pinging past editor JesseRafe. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the subject of this page has apparently asked for it to be deleted at WP:BLPN#Bonz Malone. Everymorning (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (or delete if the subject wants it deleted, as it means that his public career is over and the article will not develop past its meagre state) ... On the keep side, I see just barely enough sources, albeit a smattering, of little ones to establish some notability. The area he is in (graffitti, hip-hop) does not lend itself well to articles in big sources like the Guardian or NyTimes. Being the subject of a film is also notable, although I did ot check the scope of the film. I think what he does is interesting, and there's just barely enough there to establish WP:GNG. But just barely. New Media Theorist (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment keep is getting stonger. He is third on the list of actors in Slam, which won the grand Prize at Sundance a while back. He's also acted in a half dozen other films-- click on his name in the above link. Now we just need the refs. New Media Theorist (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in multiple NYT articles including in [1] which is an extended non-trivial mention, etc. Collect (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added to articleNew Media Theorist (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scattered newsworthy events don't add up to personal notability.KevinCuddeback (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember he was a somewhat prolific and widespread author and magazine writer in the 90s and then in a few movies here and there (not much of an actor, more like in the works of acquaintances). Don't have the time to do research and dig up sources right now, but agree with New Media Theorist that his work's genre (at that time) didn't lend itself to posterity and it hasn't held up, a lot of national magazines went under, such as Vibe, so doubt that there are the appropriate archives or bios still online. JesseRafe (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Bonin

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

I simply found nothing good to suggest better notability, improvement or a target for moving elsewhere and this has existed since August 2007 and has all the signs of it; the best my searches found were these links. I would've PRODded this but I wanted comments. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything beyond mentions and an interview or two. Sam Walton (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Run-of-the-mill spokesperson coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 05:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Mitchell

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

Tagged for notability since May 2013. He fails WP:SOLDIER and I don't believe he meets WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO Gbawden (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are written by the subject of the article. Polequant (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have a vested interest as author of the page and son of the subject. Sorry for not improving the references sooner. At the time of the first suggestion of deletion I was quite ill hence not improving the references. Perhaps describing him as military historian and biographical author might have been more accurate.

I have researched references from the Imperial War Museum who hold his diaries and for whom he recorded two recorded interviews which are held and cataloged by them as part of their oral history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/41_Commando - he wrote the only history of 41 Royal Marine Commando and drew heavily on the Commando's war diaries and the testimonies of other marines, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despatch_rider - he is only one of two dispatch riders to have written memoirs and the only one from WW2, some references include: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] I hope this helps, but understand if you would prefer to delete. Now I am well, I am happy to review the page and add much stronger references. But understand if you would rather not have such information in your encyclopedia. Warmest, Jonathan Mitchell JazzyJ DT (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Additional reference material:

3 Quotes regarding Ray Mitchell's work by pertinent military figures: Major General Julian Thomson CB OBE describes the value of such diarised accounts: ‘Ray Mitchell kept a diary, which, for security reason, was forbidden. This, now lodged in the Imperial War Museum. As an author who has spent much time in the archives of the Imperial War Museum, I can vouch for the value of books based on diaries written at the time. Ray Mitchell’s book is all the more valuable as a testimony to one Royal Marine’s experiences because he can refer to his diaries as a back-up to his recall of events. ^[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Thompson_(Royal_Marines_officer)

As a member of the Royal Marines Historical Society Ray published his first non-biographical history of the 41 Commando Royal Marines (1942-46) in which Lord Paddy Ashdown GCMG, CH, KBE, PC describes how: ‘I met Ray on a visit to Newcastle I was fascinated to hear of his book. As an ex-Company Commander (Echo Company) of 41 Commando Royal Marines… This book also conveys with fondness the camaraderie of life… training and fighting together, …not least of the bravery and dedication of the men I was privileged to command. This book bears ample testimony to the fact that those men of the 41 Commando Royal Marines – have in their turn become part of that same history.’ ^[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Ashdown

Colonel J. F. Parsons OBE, MC (Troop Commander at Salerno, Commanding Officer Infantry Training Royal Marines (1967-1969) and ‘Aide de camp’ to Her Majesty the Queen) describes how ‘Raymond Mitchell has written a very good account of a proud chapter in the history of the Royal Marines‘ ^[9]

As a member of the Royal Marines Historical Society Ray published his first history book.

Sources include: A day-by-day account of the operation in Salerno (accessed from the Royal Marine Museum) prepared by Capt George Burton (Unit Adjutant and Intelligence Officer) in close contact with Maj Baker-Cresswell.

The accounts were read, passing helpful comments and additional information to underline its overall accuracy by four officers:

Capt ‘Jock’ Sharpe (Y Troop) Capt John Stewart OBE (A Troop) Capt Jim Williams (Signals Officer) Capt Jack Sultzberger (X Troop) providing a scrapbook of photographs, printed articles, press cuttings and purely ‘41’ documents including actual signals from the Salerno action.

Publications referenced: ^[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Illustrated

Also ‘Salerno, A military Fiasco’ by Eric Morris ^[11]

However Ray elucidates that: ‘such works however, and I have read a number of others, have to be used with caution. Built up, as they generally are, from unsubstantiated personal recollections, a ‘statements of fact’ must be verified from other dependable sources before being used.’ ^[12]

Personal accounts from Commandos: ‘Rattler’ Morgan, ‘Willy’ Wilderspin, Geoff ‘Bogey’ Knight, George ‘Jock’ Brown, Cyril Barlow, Les Stokell, ‘Cliff’ Clifford, ‘Frankie-boy’ Nightingale, Eric Currie, Dick Harman, ‘Jan’ Maley, Harry Weiss, Charlie Wyatt, Tom Gratton, Jack Mason, Vic Roots, Les Rumball, George Simpson. Jim Fulton insights into the Heavy Weapons Section their and machineguns. Bill ‘Jock’ More insights into ammunition and reinforcements. Bill ‘Jock’ Hurley including his tape for Royal Marines Museum of D-Day experiences.

Imperial War Museum contributions: Dr John R Bullen – Exhibits and firearms Colin J Bruce – Printed books Simon Robbins - Documents David Parry – Photograph Archive Paul Kemp – Photograph Archive Publication committee http://www.iwm.org.uk/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_War_Museum

Royal Marines Historical Society contributions: Maj VM Bentick, Corps Historical Records Officer http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/

For his two biographical works the diaries used were Ray’s own diaries which he describes as: ‘A motley collection of six notebooks/diaries in which entries had been made, albeit rather spasmodically, over the years. [From being] a founder member of the Commando at Llanion barracks in October 1942 and was one of the very fortunate few to be still around and still with the Unit, when it was finally disbanded in January 1946.’ ^[13] Jonathan Mitchell JazzyJ DT (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wood, C (1992) Mitchell, Raymond (IWM interview) catalogue number 12741. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80012473.
^ Wood, C (1992) Mitchell, Raymond (IWM interview) catalogue number 12937. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80012666.
^ Conrad Wood, “Ten Years of the Department of Sound Records of the Imperial War Museum” Oral History 11:1 (1983), 12
^ IWM (2015). Commando despatch rider with 41 Royal Marines Commando in North-West Europe 1944-1945. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/publication/36208.
^ IWM (2015). Marine Commando Sicily and Salerno, 1943 with 41 Royal Marines Commando. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/publication/30425.
^ IWM (2015). They did what was asked of them 41 (Royal Marines) Commando, 1942-1946. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/publication/25295.
^ (Thomson, 2001, cited in Mitchell, 2001, p.ix)’
^ (Ashdown, 1996, cited in Mitchell, 1996, p.8)
^ (Parsons, 1988, cited in Mitchell, 1988, p.10)
^ The War Illustrated Edited by Sir John Hammerton
^ Morris, E (1983). Salerno: A Military Fiasco. Stein & Day Pub: USA.
^ (Mitchell, 2001, p.11)
^ (Mitchell, 2001, p.9)

Please note that you can only express a keep or delete opinion once. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No obvious notability whatsoever, neither as a servicemen nor as a writer. Worthy I'm sure, but no more notable than any of the millions of other men who served and the many thousands who wrote books about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately as far as I can see there really doesn't seem to be "significant" coverage of the subject that is independent of him, per WP:GNG. What does exist appears to either be passing mentions or refers more to his books than him. Anotherclown (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Jung

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

This seems to be a hoax - credit to Calamondin12 for tagging it. No sources provided, none found except mirrors. He is not known to Worldcat or to Google Books or Scholar. Searches find other people of the same name, such as the subject of the French article fr:Manfred Jung, but no trace of a French poet. His name does appear in this book about French poets, but it is one of those "books" of recycled WP articles, so just another mirror. If he existed at all, he is certainly not notable. The article author, Schwahn (talk · contribs) edited only on a few days in 2008; their other article Nihil Pop Organization is also at AfD as a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a hoax. No references to this writer with his supposed work, Instructions, has been found. For someone who supposedly had work published in French and German periodicals, and has a reputation "growing more and more in the world of French poetry" for 15 years, the absence of evidence is telling. A couple of references to "Consuela Wittmann" appear on since-deleted pages on Vimeo and YouTube, listing Consuela Wittmann as a supposed poet who died in 1942 and the aunt of a "Pieyre Wittmann." The latter appears to be an obscure performer or band with a supposed work titled "Oisals," also the name of the removed Vimeo video. Given the total lack of other evidence, it's tempting to believe this article may be a hoax designed to provide a backstory for some kind of project (perhaps a music video?). Calamondin12 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I actually included in this with my other nomination (Nihil Pop Organization) and there's absolutely nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Crewson

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

Political candidate is not notable as per WP:NPOL. FUNgus guy (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always, unelected candidates in forthcoming elections do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. But being mayor of a town of 7K is not enough to demonstrate that he was already eligible for an article, either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on October 19 if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjects claim of notability as an unelected federal candidate and the mayor of a small town is not enough to warrant an article at this point in time. If he's elected on October 19, then like all other elected MPs, he would meet notability requirements and an article can be re-added at that time. Cmr08 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Samuel Taylor

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local election candidate from outside the main US political parties for a city of 47,000 is always going to struggle to meet WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Lack of coverage means this one misses it by a long way. Valenciano (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for city council don't pass WP:NPOL on that basis alone — in a city of this size, even winning the city council seat wouldn't be enough (we only grant NPOL to city councillors in major metropolitan global cities, not in cities of 40K.) So if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason, then he just doesn't make it in here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; see WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambled Eggs (band)

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

Article about a non-notable band, soundtrack awards are not for bands. Searches bring up zero hits for this band therefore they fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Someone applied a db-bio tag to Charbel Habchi, an article about a band member, but instead of deleting it, I redirected it to the band article. Please delete this redirect if you delete the band article. Ditto for Charbel Haber; is this the same person under a different name? Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Charbel Haber and Charbel Habchi are not the same person Aboufawwaz (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better than this and this. The Time coverage is the best tihng and if at all that was simply circumstantial. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I beg to argue that the Times article is notable and although a bit circumstantial based on the political situation at the time, it proves that they were note-worthy enough to not only be mentioned but to represent a new type of political music during that time. Even though I found a discography of their work here ^[1] I unfortunately have to say delete since none of their work has found national or major play or mention. I also couldn't find any recent work from the past 1-2 years.Djhero2099 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick M. Shields

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

Would have prodded this, except it does sort of have two references. Searches on News, Newspapers, Books, Highbeam, and Scholar returned zero results. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as I simply found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Burkhart

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

No sources have been found that features or mentions this person, at least as a member of the House of Keys, so I'm suspecting this as a hoax. Interestingly, for years from the article creation there was a piece of information about a supposed affair scandal that led to his elimination from Tynwald. That was removed few years ago because it's not sourced. In September 2006 the first mention of his servants was added, starting with two. July 2009 adds another one, but by August 2009 the servants are five with none from the first three, which lasted until the unsourced text removal. Article was also left with vandalism for nearly a month in July and August 2009, not counting the servants that lasted. TheGGoose (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to verify his existence, never mind notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a long-lived hoax, used chiefly as a platform for assorted vandalistic edits. No references for the subject anywhere outside Wikipedia and mirrors. The Tynwald includes a list of House of Keys members that is thought to be complete from 1585 onward, and no individual named Burkhart is mentioned there. Calamondin12 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this hadn't been nominated now, I would've sooner or later and my searches simply found nothing good with this family history link briefly mentioning him through a list the best link I found. Although sources for history subjects aren't always easily accessible, there would've certainly been something for this one. It's also amusing User:Listmeister attempted to "de-orphan" this but could not...hmm, I wonder why. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete -- I also suspect a HOAX. Burkhart sounds like a German name, and most of those who came up on a book search were in America. The Isle of Man is about the size of an English county, though it has legislative powers. County Councillors are generally NN. I would have thought that mere members of the legislature would also be NN, or close to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ~~notable~~ verifiable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not verifiable, but I think our consistent practice is to consider all member of the House of Keyes notable. The size of the administrative unit has nothing to do with it. Its official status is the factor. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom hasn't commented, and keep is the clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8x8

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

Liberalarmb has made a rather vague AfD after complaining in IRC about a lack of sources. Recommending a procedural close if they do not post on this page within 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See previous PROD contested less that a month ago: PRODded by 118.1.188.70 with the summary "Non-notable company, most references are press releases", contested by Liberalartist with the summary "Seems likely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists". --TL22 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the nominator's rationale for deletion, I vote Speedy Keep. The fact that the article is "paid" doesn't mean it should be deleted. Rather, the conflict of interest noticeboard should be consulted instead. --TL22 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree. Nothing should be paid its against the Wikipedia policy. I vote Speedy delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalarmb (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 September 2015
- @Liberalarmb: Which Wikipedia policy prohibits paid editing?—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No policy prohibits paid editing, it only says it should be done with caution. If by "Wikipedia policy" you mean Wikipedia:No paid advocacy, that is a failed proposal. Proposals are not policies. --TL22 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article is not overtly promotional in tone, and it contains independent, reliable sources. A better outcome for this article is continued development and strengthening of sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article could use work but subject is notable. Lead paragraph used to be a lot worse [2]... Also very likely redlinked contributors have some connection to the organization (some quite overtly so. see: User talk:8x8pr). They aren't doing too much damage these days however. As for paid contributors, if they are then should disclose but prohibition is largely a conflation of mis-info and opinion propagated by Jimbo. Here's an item that popped up on en.planet.wikimedia.org the other day which speaks to some of that and may be of interest; but I digress. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaithaan

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

Article about a future film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FILM and WP:GNG. WP:Crystalball applies. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

WP:INDAFD: Shaithaan "Pradhip Krishnamurthy" "Vijay Antony" "Y. G. Mahendra" "Raja Krishna Murthy" "AVM Studios"

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

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

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

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

Delete for a short while. I note that WP:CBALL does not stay we cannot have articles on future events, only that if we do they be properly sourced. The article tells us that filming IS under way, so this topic can be returned under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) IF that is sourced and IF the production has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. For now, I believe this is simply premature. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film has not been released and is not considered a tent pole that would rate an article for an anticipated release. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Chilvers

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

Article about a non notable subject which contains no references and after my searches could not find any reliable sources to help the subject meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary delete pending change if more sources come to light. I recovered an "external link" from an early edit that obviously was being used as a (non-reliable by Wikipedia standards) source. I have changed the cleanup tag accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Likely delete as my searches found nothing better than this and also this last one seems to be for someone else. It is not surprising for radio people to not have good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Godha

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

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}}.

BLP, non-notable biography, fails WP:BIO Ireneshih (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional piece created by User:Vishal0soni, who has WP:COI, check here. He has also created Advaiya to promote his company Salt and burn. Ireneshih (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePromo piece Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I'm not so sure about the salting and would only be as a precautionary measure and as for the article, my searches found results at both News and browser but nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No good arguments or references to keep are presented. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advaiya

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

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}}.

Non-notable company, a promotional content referenced from low quality references. Fails to highlight, its contributions. Ireneshih (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional piece created by User:Vishal0soni, who has WP:COI, check here.Ireneshih (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ireneshih (talk). I believe that this page follows all appropriate guidelines and carries sufficient notability as per Wikipedia norms. Also, when creating this page, i had followed the AfC process, and tried to address several valuable feedback received during creation. Regarding the Conflict of Interest, i have never tried to hide any such fact, and i have clearly specified this on my user page as well. The fact is that before this conversation, i din't even knew about such WP:COI policy. If you still feel some wrong practice were followed, i request you to share your thoughts and feedback regarding the mentioned issue with article Advaiya and provide some suggestions about how can i help improve quality of this article and Wikipedia as whole.

User:Vishal0soni, Can you please provide me the details of contributions that makes you think that your company deserves an encyclopedic place. How it has served industry to make it a better place? Looking at the details, it one of millions companies that works on client's outsourcing projects with a single motive to make money. How about Manish Godha page, why do you feel these are encyclopedic topics? You have not only conflict of interest, but I have found that most of your other articles are written from personal point of view. It clear from here, that you have been editing the page with your Company owner's instructions ie removing one owner name and changing employee strength from 60 to 80. Can you please clarify why one owner was removed from the page? Or is it because the other owner asked to remove him. Your company has no contributions to be included in the Wikipedia, this is certainly not a place to promote your company which is similar to every Microsoft partner company.

No major news mentions and it looks like a puffery. Created by a possible spammer with WP:COI arguments, Salt and burn Ireneshih (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ireneshih (talk). There are several aspects due to which i believe that articles like Advaiya should get a place on Wikipedia. This company has a very good local presence, and is working on my initiatives of great importance (maybe not at international level, but for national level). For this reason, it has got coverage from many national level media channels like India Infoline Ltd, EconomicTimes, ITVoice, EFY Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and so on. It has a employed over 150 employees over a history of over 10 years (ref: https://www.linkedin.com/company/3235279?trk=prof-exp-company-name). Moreover, in this article, i have not focused on any marketing promotions, but tried to highlight the key initiatives like ActionUdaipur, that brings good change in the society, and AdvaiyaLabs, that involves innovative work with globally renowned institutions like Indian Institute of Management Udaipur.

Also, we take this article as a part of a bigger initiative. Actually our aim is to promote information and awareness about Udaipur related topics, including its locations, tourism, economy etc. To cover the economy aspect, we plan to cover many other similar organizations having good regional presence and impact, including many competitors of Advaiya (see Template:Companies_based_in_Udaipur for details). I have added your suggestions as guidelines, which we will be following during future efforts. Please let us know if we can do anything else to further improve the quality of these articles. Vishal0soni (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vishal0soni, To be honest, I complete disagree to your statement that company is notable. There are no contributions, that makes Advaiya notable, Infact there are mere mentions in your said sources. Following are the answers to your statements

Hey Ireneshih(talk). I noticed all the edits made by you in past few days, and i think i got the point you imply. I think there is some difference in perception about notability and reliability of content sources. What i feel is reliable and notable, may not hold same trust levels for you. I had marked all the content with appropriate references, but i think i would need to provide some more 'reliable' reference to match up with your expectations, for which i might need some more time. but here are the answers for your questions:

1. This company has a very good local presence, and is working on my initiatives of great importance (maybe not at international level, but for national level). Ans:- Do you have any reliable source to prove it?

Here are a few ( i guess all local sources for now)

2. It has a employed over 150 employees over a history of over 10 years (ref: https://www.linkedin.com/company/3235279?trk=prof-exp-company-name). Ans:- Do you have any reliable source to prove it? How does it makes your company eligible for an encyclopedic entry?

Here is something that might match your required levels notability:

3. But tried to highlight the key initiatives like ActionUdaipur, that brings good change in the society, and AdvaiyaLabs, Ans:- Do you have any reliable source to prove it? If yes, how they have been appreciated by the national and international media?

I think there are still some sources that were not included in original article, but not sure if they satisfies your definition of reliability:

| Action Udaipur – Makeover of a city
Bus stand cleaned under ActionUdaipur Initiative
ActionUdaipur: Sardarpura Park gets new life
Register for ‘Green Clean City’ Initiative
[Advaiya Labs announced as the technology mentor for IIMU PRARAMBH-2015 http://www.franchiseindia.com/entrepreneur/news/Advaiya-Labs-announced-as-the-technology-mentor-for-IIMU-PRARAMBH-2015-6024/]

It looks like you are very active in Udaipur, my next question is when you are going to create article for much bigger companies like Arcgate and eConnect nearby to your own WP:COI company. Are you looking to create similar promotional articles for these companies as well? Advaiya is a non-notable company and very similar promotional piece created by you for its founder Manish Godha, for which you again have a COI. I have spent a much longer time and digged into the details before moving it to WP:AFD. Please explain all contributions that makes your Boss's company notable.

My suggestion will be to read wikipedia policies mentioned on your talk page here, before adding any more spam or non-reliable content. I have reviewed Template:Companies_based_in_Udaipur, where no IT company qualifies for a WIkipedia page. Please do not create pages by adding Udaipur to their name as they already have a Wikipedia page. If you want, please go ahead and expand the current pages instead of creating Duplicate pages. Example Amkette. Remember Wikipedia is not a place to promote businesses. Ireneshih (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I also said of Manish Godha, searches found links at News and browser but nothing for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All-Africa Games sports

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

This article does not introduce any additional or relevant information to the topic. Piterkeo (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear case of over-forking. Any information can already be found in All-Africa Games.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as all continental olympic games (Asian Games sports, European Games sports...etc). --Fayçal.09 (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point but not the point to those articles either.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not point to any significance. Moreover it looks like a WP:COATRACK. --OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 23:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the Above (bluegrass band)

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

This article has been tagged as unsourced since 2009. I found one album review on line, as well as several upcoming event listings. I also found a couple of references to another band of the same name in Washington, DC. It doesn't seem as though there's been much media coverage of this band or their albums. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply nothing to suggest better and the best I found was this for a 1974 magazine for a Washington, D. C.-based None of the Above. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the band meets any of the twelve criteria set forth in WP:NMUSIC. By the way, the band's web site says they're playing this Saturday (the 26th) at a barbecue joint in Mt. Pilot, North Carolina. If you're in the neighborhood, go on down ... you might meet Opie. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. As NewYorkActuary said, searches didn't turn up anything to show they meet WP:NMUSIC, nor do they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Content can be userfied if someone wishes to merge it into something else, thus retaining the history. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with close relations to the Nordic countries

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

Fails WP:DEL6, it is an original synthesis. In addition it has an ill-defined subject "close relations" can mean a lot different things. Lappspira (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List criteria is ill defined. Subject fails WP:GNG and whole thing is WP:OR Jbh ^Talk 11:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete looks like someone's university assignment. Complete original research interpretation. LibStar (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The subject is clearly defined. The text is not original research. Nor it is a "university assignment". The article was split from the article Nordic countries, because it is too large, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is no clear unambiguous definition of "close relations". LibStar (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Staszek Lem: Are there any sources which draw the conclusions or make the assertions this article makes? It seems each of these is considered 'close' for different reasons. What makes these countries and there relationships with the Nordic countries a coherent group and what RS make that clear? How is this more that List of countries which border the Nordic countries plus France? That is what I mean by WP:OR.

What is the criteria used to define what 'close' is? Are there social, economic, political, historical, geographic factors which make something 'close'? Do all of these countries share a set of common criteria or are they 'close' for different reasons? If so what is the common criteria? Right now there is merely an assertion of 'closeness' without any clear definition of what that means. It is Europe, all of the countries have 'close' relations with each other and have done since there have been countries there. That is what I mean when I say the criteria for inclusion is ill-defined.

As to the split from Nordic countries I do not see any discussion about that on either talk page. Is there some discussion that can be linked to so we can understand the reasons behind the split? Jbh ^Talk 18:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: "clear unambiguous definition" - for the purposes of wikipedia, if there are sources which say "country A has close relations with country B", it is a clear and unambiguous statement regardless what source had in mind. Staszek Lem (talk)
re "close for different reasons" - Irrelevant. re "coherent group" - irrelevant. It is not wikipedian's job to interpret sources. Whatever definition used by a source, the phrasing "close relations" clearly indicates an aspect which makes the discussion of country A relevant to Nordic countries. In real world many things are not as clear cut as in maths. (speaking of maths, there is the whole theory of fuzzy logic to address this). Nevertheless it is evident that one may want to distinguish countries like Estonia from countries like Zanzibar. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re: "Europe, all of the countries have 'close' relations with each other" - No, not all. Anyway, an encyclopedic article deals not only with today, but with history. And some countries indeed had rather tight relations compared to others. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re: "I do not see any discussion" - per WP:BOLD one does not need one. There were no objections either. Anyway, as you may have noticed, I posted a notice in that talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re: " How is this more that List of countries which border the Nordic countries plus France" - this is not a list article. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said the article was split from Nordic countries 'because the content was too long' as a reason it should be kept so a link to a discussion would help - you appealed to prior consensus for inclusion and consensus to split the material off not BOLD. Two different things. The way you distinguish between Estonia and Zanzibar is by looking at a map. You are quite correct, we do not interpret sources which means we do not assume they mean the same thing when they use an ambiguous term like 'close' nor do we assume there is some reason these countries should be grouped together based on their relations with Nordic countries unless a RS does so. Anything else is SYNTH. Without some RS stating this grouping of countries is significant for their Nordic relations the entire topic is SYNTH and fails GNG.

Per the term 'close' every country in the Schengen Agreement, and/or the EU can be considered to have 'close' relations with one or more Nordic countries. What makes France different from Italy in this list? Having open borders, free trade and a common currency with one or more Nordic countries is 'close', why is having some Viking Settlers from 1100 years ago the distinguishing feature of 'closeness' that puts one country in the article and not the other??!!??

Per "not a list article". OK Countries which border the Nordic countries plus France - same question. Jbh ^Talk 00:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A: whatever the outcome of the fate of the article be, its content is clearly of encyclopedic value, and if the title decided to be improper for wikipedia, the article should be merged back and the fate of the content must be decided there. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherent WP:OR magnet. Encyclopedic content should be salvaged and moved/incorporated where appropriate. Renata (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, I may agree with you. See my Comment A above. However in the case of salvaging, deletion is not an option, due to wikipedia copyright reasons. And you know how to battle OR, right? Since I don't think that the topic is of high controversy, it would be pretty easy to keep it well referenced and free of WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest you copy the article in your sandbox and work from there to incorporate salvaged content to relevant articles. As for me I'm busy creating content on other topics. Lappspira (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, it seems you don't understand how wikipedia copyright works. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of soccer players with 100 or more international goals

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

As per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS. The list List of footballers with 50 or more international goals is better and makes this one redundant. I also am unsure about it as I thought that Ali Daei was the only player that had reached 100 international goals. Spiderone 09:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS apply to List of footballers with 50 or more international goals? Siuenti (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not even a 'list' for a start. The only player that should be in there is Ali Daei. Nobody else has scored 100 international goals. Spiderone 16:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - list appears to use a strange conflation of goals scored for a player's country with those scored for his club in continental competition, a combination which is literally never used as a stat in football. "International goals" is only ever used to refer to the former, and as mentioned only one player has scored 100 such goals, so there is no need for this list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure OR, article creator has merged together two things that are never linked in reliable sources. Not needed. Giant Snowman 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted just to redirect this to List of women's association football players with 100 or more international goals and mention Ali Daei somewhere. Though I wouldn't be against deleting it as WP:OR, since adding club goals to international goals does not make more international goals. Fuebaey (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Random cruft, the idea of conflating genuine international goals and continental club goals is an OR synth. Fenix down (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - misleading title - only one person on the list deserves to be there. Hack (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SNYTH - Goals scored while playing for a club, even if it is an international competition such as CONCACAF Champions League, do not meet the accepted definition of "international goals." As only one individual would otherwise meet the criteria for this list, this then falls squarely into WP:LISTCRUFT. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Folarinde Eniola Adelesi

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

Fails WP:BIO policy. Sources are all over the shop. Seems to be only a business man. scope_creep 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The subject of the article Seemed ambitious and likely to be notable in the future. I think when he becomes notable in the future, someone with no WP:COI who knows how to write an encyclopedic article, will write about him here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced except for self-sources. We are not a web host. Bearian (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Peter Vogel (computer designer). Drmies (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vogel Instruments

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

Fails notability standard. Most references are dead and the ones that are up are about Fairlight and not Peter Vogel Instruments. I could find nothing on Google or Google News. User who created the account [3] was a Single Purpose Account, quite possible written by someone in the company. CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Peter Vogel (computer designer) as that's what the sources talk about (where they're not talking about the Fairlight CMI). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peter Vogel as mentioned - I was going to comment earlier but wanted to wait...this seems like the best option until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qatara global

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

Article appears to be a hoax. Both of the references are dead links and a Google search turns up no results. I've already nominated its CEO for deletion due to similar concerns. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I found was for a Global Qatara and there's simply no improvement, it's worth noting the official website never actually loads. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elections in Pichilemu

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

Local elections in a place of pop. 14,000, fails WP:NEVENT, refbombed with WP:ROUTINE coverage from local papers and the Chilean election department. Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and the other Pichilemu-related articles. Kraxler is disrupting the project to show a point: local stuff in non-first world countries does not matter. (And yes, there is plenty of material for this kind of thing, I mean, elections...) Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC) User:Diego Grez-Cañete is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

What are you talking about? Removing content that does not belong to the project has nothing to do with "disruption". And this has nothing to do with first or third world issues. If you see first world articles equally inappropriate for the project nominate them for deletion. Sietecolores (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No encyclopedic relevance. --Keysanger (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: hyperlocal topic with hyperlocal coverage. Vrac (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So should we delete every other "elections in" article because they are hyperlocal, or is it just because this is not important to you know who? Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All hyperlocal elections should be deleted, per WP:GEOSCOPE. It's not a question of preference, but of the notability guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then go out and nominate them, Kraxler. Until then, I have the right to think this is some sort of agenda against a Chilean town-related articles. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA. And WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kraxler (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GEOSCOPE criteria. --War ko ^talk 00:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above the topic is hyperlocal and Wikipedia do not cover elections in small towns at this level of detail. Diego Grez-Cañete has an own website about Pichilemu, why not develop the topic there? Sietecolores (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it matter that I have a "website about Pichilemu"? Please remain on topic. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said before, per WP:GEOSCOPE and hyperlocal coverage. --Sfs90 (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sfs90, y si nomino tus artículos de las elecciones de Coquimbo y Huasco? (What if I nominate your articles on the Huasco and Coquimbo elections?) Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no articles on "Elections in Coquimbo" or "Elections in Huasco". Kraxler (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, the es.wiki ones; that Wikipedia is way more restrictive about local stuff. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then please discuss/nominate them there, please stay on-topic here. Kraxler (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX and WP:OTHERLANGS. --War ko ^talk 17:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol Warko, you're actually learning Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this harassing behavior now, Diego. Sietecolores (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is you the one who is harassing people, Sietecolores. Stop being a douche. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Abasar. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatkosh

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

I couldn't verify that it meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I considered a merge to Bangiya Sahitya Parishad or Abasar, but as this is unreferenced anyway, I'm not sure it should be merged, and couldn't identify which of them might be the best redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abasar. The language barrier is indeed making sources hard to find. The Abasar article does mention this and cites a source (it's a deadlink, but it's something). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep On quick search I found source. One should keep in mind that we may find numerous more reliable sources in Bengali language. We may need a person who knows Bengali language. --Human3015^TALK 01:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't delete without searching for Bengali sources AusLondonder (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be foreign-language sources which would prove notability, but no one has found them. We have to bear in mind that information needs to be verified. A redirect could easily be undone and wouldn't need to wipe the article history. But we can't leave an unreferenced, unverified, potentially unverifiable article on WP. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abasar I suppose as my multiple searches also found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Fannon

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

Poorly sourced (relying entirely on namechecks in coverage of other things, with no substantive coverage of him as a topic in his own right) WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party. There was once a time when Wikipedia accepted this as a claim of notability, but consensus changed and this no longer satisfies WP:NPOL in and of itself — if you cannot make a more substantive claim alongside it, such as actually holding a seat in a legislature, then simply running for the leadership doesn't cut it anymore. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, no other claim of notability in the article, three of the four refs are dead links, the other is a primary source, coverage is mostly local, and routine for unelected candidates, fails also WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although News and Highbeam particularly found results, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Husseini

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP (one of the two sources is a letter to the editor) of a person notable primarily as the leader of a fringe political party. This was once accepted as a claim of notability on Wikipedia, but consensus changed and it doesn't pass WP:NPOL anymore if the article can't be sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete or redirect to Communist Party of Canada (Ontario). Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, unelected candidate of a micro-party, I would accept notability for national party leaders, but not provinicial leaders Kraxler (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although News and browser found some links, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hospice of Baton Rouge

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

Considering how long this article has existed (August 2008), there has hardly been any comparable change since then and my searches including local news sources found nothing good aside from business listings at Books. I'm from Texas so I'm not local but I'm simply not seeing any possible improvement. Most of the past editors are no longer active so I'm pinging the only one VMS Mosaic (BTW, why was the first PROD removed? It had been never PRODded before from what I see). SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this and other Medicaid providers have gotten some national press recently from new reports related to Planned Parenthood's lawsuit. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I see nothing but the regular directory-style listings for such an organization. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed the first PROD on 4/9/15. The second one on 4/13. The basis was that it might pass WP:GNG. There is at least one court case in the news, for example. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot find significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. Jujutacular (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The long list of references in the article are all just links to their own web site. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emil 'Pup' Pupulidy

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

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

I'm not entirely sure if he's fully notable or if this article can be improved and the best results I found was this which includes some good sources such as an Autoweek 1958 newspaper. This has been here since August 2005 and there's no move target. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I moved the article to Emanuel Pupulidy. Kraxler (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd imagine there's tons of stuff on him in newspapers & books, Seeing as this is pre 90's I doubt there's much info on him online, So all in all I'd say it's best to just Keep & Improve. –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are lots of sources out there, like this. But his name was actually Emanuel Pupulidy and he was born in 1918. Kraxler (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article, deleted the OR, and added sources to what could be established as fact. Kraxler (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the sources/revisions provided by Kraxler. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Massie

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in federal and provincial elections. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL; if you cannot properly source that they were notable for anything else independent of their candidacies, then the candidacies themselves do not get the person a Wikipedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, basically. There's no sourcing anywhere for this person, and the obituary (the shortest I've ever seen) suggests non-notability as well. Does not pass the GNG, does not pass POLITICIAN. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely as although "Gordon Massie Canada" was the only one to find results at Books, there's nothing to suggest better from what I see. Feel free to restart if better, SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches only returned references for a different Massie, who wrote a book on whistleblowing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rilk Dacleu-Idrac

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

I have a strong suspicion that this article is a hoax. None of the 18 references even mention Rilk Dacleu-Idrac, and nearly all of them are dead links. I was unable to find any information on him whatsoever through my own research. His image appears to be photoshopped. There are even discrepencies in the lead, i.e. labeling him as 'African-American' even though he is Belgian. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems he actually exists (see this and this but there's still simply no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it does seem to be a real person, who, according to this Reuters blog, uses phony identities to promote himself. Perhaps this should have been speedy'd. This news article lists his known pseudonyms. None of the more eccentric names I searched seem to be present within Wikipedia, but I may have missed something. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elspamo4, User:SwisterTwister, I have blocked the editor. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The City Reliquary

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

Promotional and borderline notability Perhaps the two NYT sources are enough for notability, but the other references are local brooklyn or NYC papers giving extensive PR-related coverage of local events). The content is so detailed as to be promotional--a detailed list of objects in a museum is not done at WP even for the most famous museums. There's obvious COI, and all attempts at improvement have been reverted. That might justify G13, as a promotional article not fixable by normal editing, but I prefer to bring it here.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism --or even clear persistent promotionalism on a notable subject -- is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The City Reliquary is dedicated to chronicling the history of NYC. Why does this make it not notable? The Museum of the City of New York has its own article and this seems not to be a problem. Many of the Reliquary's visitors are international tourists from European countries, so the appeal of the museum goes beyond NYC or Brooklyn. Numerous international editions of the Lonely Planet travel guide, and other international guide books, describe it as a must-see museum in New York.
All improvements imposed by Wikipedia editors remain. Not sure where this objection is coming from.
The article for the Metropolitan Museum of Art contains a section where major objects from the collection appear with links that ultimately lead to the MMA site. Is this not promotional? Seeing as how this is acceptable for the Met, it does not seem out of line that The City Reliquary would also highlight key objects. The same thing occurs in the article for The Museum of Modern Art. This seemed to be the standard for museum Wiki articles and was the guideline followed when composing The City Reliquary article.
It would be helpful to receive feedback as to how the article for The City Reliquary could improve. At the moment, some of the issues cited as grounds for deletion seem to single out the museum unfairly. Scelentano81 (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)— Scelentano81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Notability is minimal. Fails WP:GEO. It's just a small storefront. See it here in Google StreetView. [4]. John Nagle (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The space is not just a storefront. It comprises three rooms featuring objects in addition to a sizable outdoor area that also features installations. And in any case, the physical size of the space has no bearing on the artistic or historic merits of its contents. Conde Nast has listed The City Reliquary as one of the best small museums in NYC. Scelentano81 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagle: WP:GEO links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. As such, this does not provide a valid rationale for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant WP:GEOFEAT, which applies to buildings. WP:ORG is also relevant. John Nagle (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repair. I think this small institution's notability as a Brooklyn attraction is reasonably well-established. Among the more persuasive sources, we have not only the Times articles, but also a 2006 NPR Weekend Edition feature [5][6], and there's a helpfully succinct profile of the place in New York [7]. I acknowledge and respect the concerns about promotion raised by the nomination. There is some puffery here, but I don't perceive such a severe case of commercial promotion, or a pattern of resistance to improvement, as to warrant banning this from the encyclopedia. I think there should be a difference between our approach to crass corporate advertising, on the one hand, and, on the other, how we handle articles about legitimate non-profit cultural institutions. Many of our articles about legitimate museums tend to overstate the praises of their subjects, but rather than eliminate these, I would prefer to try to clean them up. Here, for example, we could sharply winnow down the "special events" section, and examine the rest with an eye toward avoiding any sideshow-barker tone in the prose. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Arxiloxos that this museum seems notable: along with the local sources, NPR covered the institution on a national broadcast. I have trimmed some of the promotional content, but have left removing the list of special events up to a broader consensus. Altamel (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1891 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh

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

This is basically a compiled transcription of a primary source that is known to be unreliable. It includes links to numerous other articles that may or may not in fact be the communities designated in the census. Basically, it is verifiable only due to a failure to comply with WP:RS. Without context, and with the links, it is effectively useless. A similar article - 1901 Census of Rajputana - was recently deleted for the same reasons.

For background relating to the utility of this type of article, please note Census of India prior to independence and also the recent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1901_Census_of_the_North-Western_Provinces_and_Oudh Sitush (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge to 1891 census of India if possible. No need for a separate article. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what? The data is not reliable and links are ambiguous. Your proposed target article will also be up for deletion when I'm feeling better. These, and many other articles deleted in recent years, are all the work of one highly problematic contributor who is no longer active. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I thought that we ought to have kept the 1901 article, but I was evidently in a minority. Yes, it probably was inaccurate, but it is the best data that exists. The complaint about it being based on a single source is ridiculous. It is, of course, quoting a single source, because there was only one census report, not several. However, I am voting to delete, because of the 1901 precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Adalat Khan

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

This is an unsourced stub about a person. I BLPPRODded it but the creator claims the person is dead and so removed the tag. Of course, there's no source for that, either. His supposed medals and family connections do not make him notable. I'm not sure if his supposed rank would, but it's unsourced. The "Sherlock Holmes of Balochistan" is unsourced and sounds dubious. Was previously illustrated but image was deleted as a copyvio. IN SHORT: no evidence of notability. BethNaught (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor, for that matter, of actually being true. BethNaught (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as I'm not seeing any signs of improvement and my searches particularly Books found results for other people including an agriculturist. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please visit SUPPLEMENT TO THE LONDON GAZETTE, 1 JANUARY, 1918 page 86. It contains the required citation and hope you guys will be satisfied. And next time please mention your concern on article talk page rather than moving the article straight for deletion. Thanks.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As for supposed medal , Notability and significance of madel please visit thae above mentioned link and Queen's Police Medal( prior to 1940 it was called Kings police madel). Also please refer to clause of General notability guideline Notability

Quote from WP:N

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"^[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.^[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Also please refer to Responsibility for providing citations in Verifiability

Quote from WP:V

consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.^[4] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.^[5]

Wikibaba1977 (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The London Gazette source is a one-line mention and does not establish notability. I have been unable to access the journal article but since you only quote one page I don't think that alone would support notability. Also, stop claiming I'm misbehaving by not asking for citations first. The WP:BURDEN is on you and you alone to source everything you write. BethNaught (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.discogs.com/artist/789898-Scrambled-Eggs-3
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
^ It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. In the case of a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.
^ When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV.

Comment The one line says it all, Its queens/Kings police madel just like victoria cross, not some any other madel. The recipients of these madels are cosidered notable, thats why they are given this madel. I didnt said anything that you misbehaved with me. Read my comments again and also read the above mentioned guidelines also. please see Queen's Police Medal.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO States that someone who has received a well-known award is likely to be notable. If you look at Template:Decorations of the United Kingdom the QPM is actually two levels below the Victoria Cross, so whether this satisfies ANYBIO needs more discussion. I'm not sure if a VC makes you notable anyway.

Procedural note: there is no need to copy out the guidelines. We have the intelligence to click on links. Copy-pasting large chunks of text gives rise to WP:WALLS which make people less interested in reading your argument. Moreover, it's spelt "medal" not "madel": I'm surprised you didn't notice that given you link to pages with that word in the title. BethNaught (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at your behavior i must say you are in violation of WP:NPOV. I pasted the guidelines for people like you who think they have the intelligence but don't use it to their advantage. If you had read the guidelines in the first place then you might have added {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}} instead of just tagging it for deletion. As for Notability you your self has pointed out that WP:ANYBIO States that someone who has received a well-known award is likely to be notable. I can also point out your grammar mistakes like comma etc but i will not because English is not my mother tongue and this is not the right forum for this type of discussion. My advice try to avoid this type of silly discussion in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaba1977 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As already related above according to WP:ANYBIO States that someone who has received a well-known award is likely to be notable. also please refer to Category:Dead people in the present context.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior police officer. The King's (or Queen's) Police Medal is nowhere near high enough for any form of inherent notability. Suggesting it's anywhere near the Victoria Cross is laughable. Nearly 100 KPMs were awarded in that half-yearly honours list alone (about half of them to Indian police officers) and this was quite common. It was primarily a medal to recognise long service, although it was sometimes awarded for acts of gallantry as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage. The King's Police Medal does not denote the type of notability that is needed for inclusion on Wikipedia. Perhaps it imparted local notability, but not encyclopedic notability. EricSerge (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Atlético Mineiro European tour

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

A tour consisting only of friendly matches doesn't seem to confer notability. The article claims Atletico Mineiro was the first team from Minas Gerais to tour Europe, which is fine, but really who cares? If they were the first team from South America as a whole, or even just Brazil, that would be different, but this is excessive. Furthermore, there are only two sources in the article, both of which only corroborate the fact that the tour happened, not that it was in any way notable. This would be better suited as part of an article on the overall history of Atletico Mineiro. – Pee Jay 11:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 11:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment, leaning on keep. At least merge into History of Clube Atlético Mineiro (but the history article is of good size already, so this is probably a normal split from it). I am not sure what the standards for football tournaments are, but I note that a European tour for a Brazilian club back in 1950 is very much more relevant than it is today, as it was rare then. Note that regular official competition between Europe and South American teams only started in 1960 (Intercontinental Cup (football)), with a few early attempts in the 1950s (Copa Rio, Pequeña Copa del Mundo de Clubes). A truly global competition exists only since 2005, with a initial tournament in 2000 (FIFA Club World Cup). So a 1950 friendly tournament may be quite relevant. It certainly was very much so for Atlético Mineiro's history as they have a sentence in their anthem - "Nós somos campeões do gelo" ("we are the ice champions") [8] - which is otherwise incomprehensible for a team from the tropics (or nearby, not sure - it's hot, anyway, no ice there :-). The club webpage list this has one of their international titles - títulos. By itself not the strongest argument, as they also list more recent friendlies (1980s and onwards) which I would not vote to keep, for being more recent. If you search for it in Portuguese e.g. "atletico mineiro campeao do gelo" you'll find a few more pages than looking for it in English. E.g., a couple of news video images - 4-0 win w/ Hamburg (Germany) and 2-1 win w/ Stade Français (France) (yes, not much of a crowd there...); or a blog that references a couple of books (futebolarj.blogspot.pt); and news from when At. Mineiro played at the FIFA CWC. Note that in Brazil (a federal nation) state championships are a big deal, Brazil is a huge country and it only has a national championship since 1970 or so, so references to the state is quite normal, for Brazilian football culture. Not the greatest subject, nor the greatest article, but this looks much more relevant and historically significant than many of the recentist stuff we have about football. - Nabla (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - non-notable friendly tour. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The refs above and below suggest GNG in non-english language sources. The article needs expanding with this content. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but significant improvement of the article needed. - It seems the general impression about the subject, which the article itself as it is right now conveys, is that it is nothing more than a regular friendly tour, not different from any other tour from any other club around the world, which would mean it would not be notable at all. Although the article itself isn't well-written and doesn't provide much relevant information about the subject as to its notability, the tour represented more than just a "regular" one, as Nabla has said. Even though it wasn't the first South American or Brazilian club's tour to Europe, it was indeed a rare fact for a Brazilian football club at the time (a time in which leagues at national level did not even exist and state-level football was the only active one) to do so, especially at winter time and in the wake of the Maracanazo. The tour and its outcome were seen at the time it happened as historically relevant for Brazilian football itself, as these news from Jornal dos Sports (the largest sports newspaper at national level) explicitly say: 1 2 3. Some more recent sources covering the fact, namely a TV news piece by ESPN Brasil, news by Hoje em Dia and Superesportes, articles at Ludopedio and 11 Freunde (German sports magazine), and a book ("Diário de um Craque", by José do Patrocínio Vieira), besides the ones Nabla has cited, show the tour is at least notable enough to be a news topic even at present time. Felipe Bini (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: despite the sources being reliable, I don't see a page for European tours from Santos, which was the first team to gain some notoriety in Europe, so why maintain this one? Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but let's be reasonable, no one except Atlético fans/supporters (and we have to consider that they have at least a basic understanding of English) will enter this article. MYS 77 ^✉ 20:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On a "historical" note, Santos' notoriety in Europe was achieved mostly because of its Libertadores and Intercontinental victories and general success in the 60s, a time in which obviously continental and intercontinental competition already existed and Brazil itself was already established as a "big" footballing nation (unlike the period of the event in question), so under these circumstances friendly tours would hardly be notable (notice we are not even discussing later Atlético Mineiro tours either, which would obviously fail GNG as well, but a specific one). What's on discussion isn't club A or club B's international notoriety, but the notability of this specific tour to deserve an article. You've already addressed WP:OSE (and WP:OCE) yourself, but if a Santos or any other club's tour in any way meet the GNG objective criteria by having coverage from reliable sources, like you said yourself this one does, it could very well be suitable for an independent article. "no one except Atlético fans/supporters (...) will enter this article" is hardly an argument either (WP:NOBODYREADSIT, WP:LOCALFAME). All in all, I believe the sources (which exist in more than one language and country) show the subject meets GNG and would be oddly placed in the club's general History article. Felipe Bini (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- comment 1) I am not a Atlético Mineiro fan. 2) Remarks about Atletico fans' English Language competence is irrelevant, uncalled for, and inelegant. - Nabla (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources to indicate general notability, it's too big to sensibly merge into the club's history, and the historical context of the tour makes it an interesting and valuable addition to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. As to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and NOBODYREADSIT, someone should check out the contents of Template:Friendly tournaments 2015 and predecessors... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seen in historical context, this was an important and noteworthy excursion of a Brazilian team in Europe. Germany had been barred from participation in international events, and only in 1954 made their comeback at the World Cup. As has been pointed out, there were no other intercontinental championships at the time. Most of the games drew large crowds, I think modern-day Wikipedia users are unaware of the proportions: 30,000 people was the average attendance of the World Cup in 1954 in Switzerland. Besides, there are lots of sources from the pre-internet times, print media and TV coverage/news reels. A clear pass of WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a soccer/football fan, but it's an interesting episode in the context of the social history of the city of Belo Horizonte. Info on which is sorely lacking in Wikipedia and elsewhere. The word "football" should appear in the first sentence, not at the end of the first paragraph. Prburley (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Isle of Wight Steam Railway locomotives and rolling stock

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

Only sources are primary and can't find anything on google. Fails GNG. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is notable since it is a railway open to the public, but more sources would be preferable. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 13:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This amounts to split content from Isle of Wight Steam Railway, so I'm not sure we should worry about notability. Rolling stock lists are pretty common, though I'm not a fan. The items on the list aren't notable, and these lists in general tend to acquire unverifiable railfan cruft. I don't know that any policies govern this use case. These lists by their nature are self-referenced and best handled with an external link back to the railway's website instead of a list which reproduces that site's content. Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Similar lists exist for other major UK heritage railways. They are split off from the HR article for size reasons. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems like a merge would make the target article, from which this was extracted from, too long. --Oakshade (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a historical article, Sourcing needs improvement but notability's there .–Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Ride (film series)

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

Appears to be almost a duplicate of Joy Ride (2001 film) scope_creep 07:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless I'm missing something the entire article is pretty much redundant by the template below?.... Anyway not needed. –Davey2010^Talk 14:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely unless anyone else thinks it should be redirected to the first film as the template is necessary enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It seems that the discussion is more about under which name this cultivar should be covered, but this can be discussed further at the articles' talk pages. Sandstein 10:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almond potato

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

In the talk page for the article it mentions that the article is based on a mistranslation from Norway Falconjh (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

or renaming it to Mendel potato per the source:http://www.europotato.org/display_description.php?variety_name=Mandel might be more accurate and better than deletion, assuming it is notable enough to keep and not essentially the same as 5 other potato varieties according to that same source. Falconjh (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in English called an "Almond Potato" and the only current reference is a dead link to a Norwegian embassy website. Are embassies reliable sources for establishing the notability of plant varieties?.: I think not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure as it seems this exists and the French and Finnish (Suomi) Wikis have more info so we may not want to be quick to delete this especially if it is common in Scandinavia. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and move to Mandel potato. Note that the spelling is MAndel, not MEndel. It's real enough and is called as such, as confirmed in Nærstad et al. (2006) which describes it as an "Old Nordic cultivar of unknown origin". And yes, the previously mentioned entry for Mandel in the European Cultivated Potato Database. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename. The cultivar is real, and it is considered a local specialty in areas where it is grown. The EU confirmation as protected designation of origin should be enough to cross the notability threshold. --MPorciusCato (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to find more on it I found that it was a Fingerling potato, and I suggest merging in, as I sort of already did. Falconjh (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This potato is covered in Fingerling potato, where the contents of this article are duplicated verbatim. Why should we have 2 articles with the same content? I suggest a redirect. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as stated above, Falconjh duplicated the article to that section after the fact. I still think the topics are different enough to merit two separate articles and not a redirect.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:09, 11 September 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) 04:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Obsidian Soul is correct, as I stated; in fact, should I sandbox that change until this is decided? Falconjh (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a Mandel or Fingerling potato then? Looks like Mandel is more accurate, in which case the redirect should go there. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandel would be the narrowest correct definition; Fingerling as a broader category is also correct. Falconjh (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and rename if that is the problem at hand. EU confirms this even. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears clear that this is either the same as Mandel or Fingerling, both of which already have articles, and there is nothing in this article which needs to be merged. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-established variety of potato, known since the 19th century - I have no difficulty finding a reference to it in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England of 1898. See also Abe’s Guide to Growing the Potato. Andrew D. (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this is kept, then we need to do something about differentiating it from the two other varieties, which is currently unclear. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this might be useful, I'll also post this here from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 26:

Results of "Almond potato" in Google: there are ZERO results for a potato cultivar. The results are all about potatoes mixed with almonds. Which is NOT what Mandelpatet means in Danish/Norwegian/Swedish/German.
Results of "Mandel potato" in Google:

Nærstad, R.; Hermansen, A.; Bjor, T. (2006). "Exploiting host resistance to reduce the use of fungicides to control potato late blight". Plant Pathology. 56 (1): 156–166. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2006.01491.x. ("Mandel - Old Nordic cultivar of unknown origin")
Favourite potatoes - Mandel
Tatermater forums ("Mandel - A somewhat famous Swedish/Scandinavian potato with a great taste. We've grown this for a few years and I've noticed in the spring when all our other potatoes have sprouted Mandel still hasn't which makes them great for eating in springtime. The annoying thing with these are that they are small, which makes it a chore to harvest them and also to eat if you're peeling your potatoes.")
Youtube - "Mandel Potatoes"
Kenosha Potato Collection Catalog ("Peanut (aka Swedish Peanut, Mandel) Medium-small fingerling to oval and tear-drop shaped tuber with tan russeted skin and dense yellow flesh. Good storage is reported for this late season cultivar."
A stock photo of "A basket of Mandel potatoes"
Butterfinger Fingerling Potatoes ("Also called: Mandel Potatoes; Swedish Peanut Potatoes")
Draft of Product Regulations of ddmmyy No - EFTA ("Mandel potatoes are mid-season table-stock potatoes with superior quality under the right growing conditions. The tubers are elongated, slightly flattened...")

Note that this was compiled in reply to the assertion by User:Sam Sailor (who did an inappropriate non-admin closure on this) that "Mandel potato" has "no historical use in the English language". -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For convenience, here is also the direct link to the page in Abe’s Guide to Growing the Potato which uses the name "Almond potato". I think it is actually referring to the same cultivar. @User:Andrew Davidson can you link us to the 1898 journal article please? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Technically this discussion should have been procedural closed early as no valid reason for deletion has been given by nom. It's a mere matter of what is the correct WP:COMMONNAME.

I can understand that it's easy to confuse things more than necessary here:

Nom started this discussion on 03:43, 4 September 2015. A few hours later, 13:53, 4 September 2015, they more or less copy paste Almond potato without supplementary attribution into the article Fingerling potato in this diff.

User:Obsidian Soul makes 05:54, 5 September 2015‎ in this thread the assumption that the article should be renamed to Mandel potato (diff) and creates that title as a redirect to Fingerling potato the next day 6 September 2015.

That seems to have made Onel5969 cast his !vote, but Almond potato predates Fingerling potato with several years, not to talk about the newly created Mandel potato.

The coined term "Mandel potato" returns a mere 193 Ghits, among them are 0 Google Book hits. Talking about the name of the variety being Mandel is not the same as talking about "Mandel potato".

If Obsidian Soul had done any book searches they would have seen that the term "Almond potato" has been in use in English literature since at least 1896:

Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society. Royal Horticultural Society. 1896. pp. 406–.
Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England. Royal Agricultural Society of England. 1898. pp. 590–.</ref>
Jan Kjaerstad (11 November 2008). The Conqueror. Arcadia Books Limited. pp. 241–. ISBN 978-1-908129-53-6.
Mikael Niemi (4 January 2011). Popular Music from Vittula: A Novel. Seven Stories Press. pp. 145–. ISBN 978-1-60980-288-2.
Lonely Planet; Andy Symington; Carolyn Bain (1 March 2012). Lonely Planet Scandinavia. Lonely Planet. pp. 559–. ISBN 978-1-74220-678-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Caroline Hofberg (13 December 2013). Traditional Swedish Cooking. Skyhorse Publishing Company, Incorporated. pp. 296–. ISBN 978-1-62873-215-3.
Lantbrukshögskolan (1949). Lantbrukshögskolans annaler: Annals of the Agricultural College of Sweden. Annalen der Landwirtschaftlichen Hochschule Schwedens. Lantbrukshögskolan. pp. 781–. Mandel (Almond potato, an old variety probably of French origin) was the dominating variety ... In the rest of the country Mandel was not grown at all or (in some places) grown only as a curiosity. Ackersegen was grown ...

Not to mention the 100s of hits a WWW search returns:

Book cites were added to the article prior to closing this discussion, and I stand by my NAC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my actions, I kind of figured that a stub which had no real substantive edits for over two years which my searching in English quickly showed up that Mandel was the more correct name over Almond in English (and giving Swedish anything in that regards isn't going to help at all) was going to be non-controversial. I actually think renaming is probably the best option at this point as apparently some people do care quite a bit about this potato, at least when it is nominated for integration into Fingerling and deletion as its own stub. Falconjh (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about hits. We're talking about a CULTIVAR. The number of hits is irrelevant when most of the hits with "almond potato" refers to a recipe which mixes almond and potato. I have done my research. What do you think those links are for above? And if did your research before nominating the redirect as well, you would have clearly seen that "Mandel" has been used as well. Including one of the sources you've provided. Which kind of refutes your earlier assertion that Mandel potato has never been used in the English language, doesn't it?

A few of your links are inaccessible. And several are in Swedish, not English, like this one, which doesn't even have "Almond potato" anywhere on the page. Most of them are restaurant menus (not exactly WP:RS) which does nothing to enlighten if it refers to a potato cultivar or the recipe which uses almonds and potatoes together.

If we're talking about books, "Mandel potato" (in English) is used in the following (all of them botanical works which clearly identifies it as a cultivar, not a recipe)

Maataloustietellinen aikakauskirja, Volumes 57-58, pp 151, 153, etc.('"the cultivar Puikula with the pattern of the cultivar Mandel presented in the Index of European Potato Varieties by Stegemann")
Libyan Journal of Agriculture 1982, pp. 110-111 ("VFN FiRS and Mandel 502 VFN FiRS were only slightly susceptible")
Phytophthora Infestans 150, p.79 ("Laila, Beate, Kerrs Pink, Mandel, and Pimpernel. All these cultivars lack R genes")
Influence of environmental conditions on potatoes: with special reference to plant breeding under Swedish conditions, pp. 134, 168 (Mandel is used in tables comparing growth rates of different potato cultivars)
Swedish Seed Production, p. 28 ("Mandel (Almond) is a local variety of North Sweden. Especially good cooking quality, but the yield is low.")
Organic Seed in the Nordic Countries, p. 46 (Mandel is listed under potato varieties, along with Troll and Gullauge)

I don't prefer either "Almond potato" or "Mandel potato". But both are clearly used. What we are trying to do here is determine which is the more common name (my !vote, if you didn't notice, was rename, not delete). And if you think discussions like AfDs are about counting !votes, you need to read the policies again.

I mean, what's with all this hostility in AfDs? This is NOT a contest. And you were involved. Your NAC was inappropriate given that you have a conflict of interest as the nominator of the other discussion.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that cultivar names are scientific names. They are regulated by scientific organizations. They are not common names that can be changed according to whim. When the European Cultivated Potato Database identifies it as Mandel. THAT is the name they are registered under (and thus the name used in scientific literature). The question here is if whether "Almond potato" is used more commonly (or at all) for the cultivar, and thus would be more recognizable for readers if it was the article title. The other possible common names are "Swedish peanut potato" and "Swedish peanut fingerling", both of which should be redirects as well. Note that we are not talking about the oldest name, but the WP:COMMONNAME. But again, the assertion that "Mandel" is not used at all (or is irrelevant) is false, when it is the name the cultivar is recognized under scientifically. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I should also mention that Fingerling potato is a TYPE of potato that is shaped like a finger. Mandel/Almond potato is a fingerling potato. But not all fingerling potatoes are Mandel/Almond. If that makes sense. I created the redirect simply because User:Falconjh moved it there. As I stated above, I still preferred that it be a separate topic and not a subsection.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... just in case the next closer is only counting !votes. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anti-Hinduism. Merging anything useful from the history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 10:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduphobia

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

A dictionary-like entry that does not cite any significant discussion of the term in the secondary literature. GoldenRing (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduphobia is not a new entry, it is prevalent in academic discourse. Much Debated, the term as well as the phenomenon is also prevalent in many areas of life, I will be making many additions with references. major heading will be

Extended content

Prevalence
- Colonial Hinduphobia
  - Early Colonial Hinduphobia
  - Late Colonial Hinduphobia
  - Muslim League
- Political Hinduphobia
  - Minorities
  - Leftist
  - Liberalist
  - Secularist
- Academic Hinduphobia
  - Western Academia
  - Indian Academia
- Hinduphobia in Mass Media
  - Print Media
  - Electronic Media
  - Movie
- Hinduphobia in Popular Culture
  - Hinduphobia in Arts
  - Hinduphobia in Popular Literature
  - Denigration of Hindu objects
    - Hindu Practices
    - Hindu Saints
      - Anti-Brahmanism
      - Historical Hindu Figures
  - Anti Hindu Jokes

and many more Mrutunjay S A (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like the creation of the article was based on a WP:COPYVIO. Compare the lead (first edit) to this article (cited), published the same day in The Hindu. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Anti-Hinduism. Not seeing enough in the literature to distinguish this as a topic sufficiently distinct from anti-Hinduism such that it merits its own stand-alone article (which is to say, even if there are sources showing the neologism is notable, that doesn't mean it should have its own article because it still substantially overlaps with another topic we already cover. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Suitable to merger/redirection with Anti-hinduism there is enough literature to distinguish the both, Anti-Hinduism and Hindophobia. Hinduphobia is different from Anti-Hinduismin the sense that the later is often used to refer violent and abusive activities against Hindus. which are visible and obvious while the former is used to refer contemporary anti-Hindu approach ambiguously practiced in academic, political, social discourse. Article does not overlap the existing topic Anti-Hinduism. Hinduphobia leads to Anti-Hinduism, as i will add more information regularly to show the difference. Mrutunjay S A (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrutunjay S A: Our article on Anti-Hinduism defines it as "a negative perception or religious intolerance against the practice and practitioners of Hinduism". Although you may be right that some people use that term to refer to violence/abuse, it clearly encompasses more than that. Some of the examples in that article are calling Hindus racists, calling them "demonic", stereotyping of all sorts, etc. As the name implies, anti-Hinduism is just a perspective against Hinduism -- it's not particular to certain activities as far as I can tell. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per WP:SNOW and WP:FORK. Even if there is a distinction, there is no difference. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect as suggested as although News, Books and highbeam all found results, it's likely best at the other article for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nominator's rationale is compelling - the article is entirely sourced to self-published websites, see WP:SPS, and therefore its contents are not verifiable through reliable sources (WP:V). This core policy violation mandates deletion. The arguments advanced by others in the discussion do not address this. Any redirect would be an editorial decision. Sandstein 10:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twin flame

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

This is an ill-defined concept, and despite being tagged for notability concerns since December 2014, there are still no reliable sources in the article. Slashme (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is going to have articles about Abrahamic religions, or pages about Mary_Magdalene, it seems wrong to delete this page without displaying some level of bias, even though the subject matter is considered non-religious. The New Age was/is a spiritual alternative to the rigidities displayed by some rather large religions, and people have found hope and belonging in them. I was directed to the page from a general Internet search, it is not a subject in which I can contribute, but I saw the note and felt I should comment. In a few other non-Wikipedia pages I've read about this particular subject, no mention was made of mythology as it was in this article, and it is worth pointing out that section is referenced with what I believe would be considered a reliable source: mit.edu. Gzuufy (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that New Age is notable as a concept, but the question here is whether anything in this article is properly verifiable. If the article has been tagged since last December and no-one has taken the trouble to bring it up to scratch, I seriously question how important the topic is. Maybe it can go onto the New Age Wiki at Wikia in the mean time. I see they don't have an article about Twin Flames yet. --Slashme (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...whether anything in this article is properly verifiable." Are you saying that mit.edu's translation of Plato's Symposium is an unverifiable or unreliable citation? Gzuufy (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me rephrase that. This article contains much that is verifiable, and much that is relevant to the New-Age concept of Twin Flames. Unfortunately, what is verifiable isn't relevant, and what is relevant isn't verifiable. --Slashme (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find your objection to the label to be rather circular (verifiable but not relevant and relevant but not verifiable), and difficult to understand. I started wondering if Plato's text had no relevance to what was written in the article. Thus, I read (very) little of The Symposium, quickly finding the relevant section by searching for "four". I believe I can see the interpretation written in Wikipedia's Twin Flame article in that text. Curiously, literature is somewhat different from mathematics which has more well defined rules, while the former is much more open to multiple interpretations. I personally can see a number of ideas expressed in that text which more rigid and long-established religions have declared as immoral (such as homosexuality).

This article's title "Twin Flame" appears to be a label for a conception of love which exists among some groups. I looked at Google books momentarily, and saw that Elizabeth Clare Prophet wrote about Twin Flames in some of her works. I'm not familiar with that work of hers or any of her other writings, but I am familiar with the fact that she's a notable and long time contributor in the New Age movement.

One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to explain topics to readers. It's been noted by others that verifiability, not truth is part of Wikipedia's verifiability construct. I'd suggest leaving the banners at the top (except for the deletion banner), and be patient. Since folks who write at Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers (for the most part), you can't just slap up a banner and expect a quick response as you could with paid employees whom you can fire at will. I've occasionally seen citation needed requests on some Wikipedia articles that are several years old. Gzuufy (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to Soul, since the general concept of what one's soul is (assuming that it exists), where its boundaries lie (or 'lay'[?]), and how it bonds with some other person appears like something that's better handled as a short discussion there CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Responders Group

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

Poorly referenced article. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTABILITY due to lack of independent resources (I didn't find any, even ones of questionable reliability). Alaynestone (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest improvement and I'm from this area and have never of this so it's very likely a minor company. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip F. Johndrow

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

armycruft notability tagged for 5 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Senior NCO. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would give him the benefit of the doubt here (a rarity I assure you in my case). While the tone of the article needs improving (and I tagged it accordingly), I don't believe "armycruft notability tagged for 5 years" is sufficient reason for deletion. I am, of course, open-minded and willing to change my mind based on any other rationales for deletion that may arise here. Quis separabit? 14:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely a good reason for deletion is the fact that he's not notable? In what way is he any more significant than any other NCO in any other army in the world? He has no decorations that raise him above the others. He's done nothing that raises him above the others. He's just a senior NCO who's done a good job and has had a distinguished career within his field. So have many thousands of others. We almost never keep articles on NCOs unless they have significant decorations for gallantry. A Bronze Star most certainly doesn't count - it's so low as not even to count as a medal in most countries (a 4th level award at the most generous). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG (there isn't enough to even write a half way complete biography with significant details of his life missing for instance). A commendable career but nothing more than that as far as I can see (42 months in Iraq!). I cannot find anything to support the claim that he is the recipient of the Order of St George (although I only did a quick Google search). Is anyone in a posn to verify that? Seems a bit strange to me that a US Army SNCO would receive a Russian award that's all (or is this referring to some other award of a similar name - there appear to be a few just going by our dab page Order of St. George (disambiguation))... Anotherclown (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found a nice article at the Post here, and some mentions in books. The rest were press releases. Distinguished does not always translate into notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circumplast Circumcision

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

I'm not sure if this product is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for zero hits on GNews and GBooks. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are three references cited, but none of them contain any reference to the specific device which is the subject of the article. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as all my searches found absolutely nothing to suggest better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's clearly a specialized tool for every job........ Clearly could use a little work with the name, however — I'd have gone with Mr. Mohelmann's Bris Binky.™ Carrite (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather under criterion G4. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 22:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Tiger (Rapper)

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

Non-notable musician. Not all sources mention subject. Claims to notability, e.g. founding a rum company 163 years ago and signing a $400,000,000 distribution deal, are dubious. Blackguard 05:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I stated in my original PROD:

“

Non-notable rapper who has apparently only charted on local (if that) charts. In addition, some of the references don't even mention him.

”

Moreover, not only is it a blatant puff piece, but as the nominator suggested, a lot of the statements in there seem flat-out made up. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt This was just taken to AFD and deleted[9] a little over 2 weeks ago. The title was superficially changed to avoid a speedy tag I assume(The r in rapper was capitalized) or the previous variation was salted(if not it should be). If you look at the AFD I linked you will also see this article has been created and deleted at least 3 times under different names. Me5000 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mookie Jones

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

Marginal college basketball player who fails WP:NHOOPS. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually think he meets WP:GNG based on independent reliable sources such as this and this and this. The article needs to be updated, though. Rikster2 (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources identified by Rikster2, meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in independent reliable source. Thus, WP:WHYN can be met "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." SNGs are a helpful quick check in most case, but GNG is more comprehensive.—Bagumba (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he meets GNG due to the sources brovided by Rikster. Would love to have information on his professional career/where is he now type of thing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems better and acceptable now. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How does this satify GNG? I see mostly blogs and box scores. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you clicked none of the links I posted above? There is also this, this and this. Clearly meets GNG in my opinion. In fact, Jones is a great example of how starters for the very top college teams often do get the requisite coverage to meet GNG even if they don't meet NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth thadikaran

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

Unsourced. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 05:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as vanity page for non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 23:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as the best I found was some News links but not even much. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some trivial mentions in News, not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Mess (band)

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

Fails all 12 points of WP:BAND The Dissident Aggressor 05:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a few pieces of coverage (e.g. [10], [11]) but not really close to enough to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing even minimally good. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches didn't turn up enough to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems like a promising band, but lack of references and objective pressDjhero2099 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to South East Queensland AFL. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woodsmen Australian Football Club

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

Non-notable amateur team. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources The-Pope (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South East Queensland AFL as that appears to be the comp they play in and it could be a plausible search term. If it is redirected we could probably then just protect the redirect so it can't be recreated if that's a concern. Jenks24 (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jenks24. In fact, I think all of the team articles listed at South East Queensland AFL#Current Clubs could be put up for deletion. I haven't looked at all of them, but most appear to be unreferenced articles of amateur teams. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I suppose if that's best as I found nothing better than some links with browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lahmard Tate

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

Delete: insufficently notable actor. Does not derive notability from brother, actor Larenz Tate Quis separabit? 03:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTINHERITED. Although he is listed at the NY Times, I can't find any coverage of him other than this local story.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Larenz Tate as although News and Books found results, there's nothing to suggest improvement and it seems he's simply an ordinary actor. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Notability is not inherited. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Sources don't show that he passes WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or even WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Choksi

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

Non-notable consultant psychiatrist lacking non-trivial support. Article written by article subject. reddogsix (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage isn't significant enough to pass WP:BIO. --Drm310 (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found some results with News, Books and highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement but feel free to draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't have enough in-depth coverage to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and the trivial mentions don't rise to the level of passing WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As a group - individual nominations remain possible. Sandstein 10:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Powell Watts

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

This is the first of several articles in which a single user has been creating articles which reference minor and otherwise non-notable authors. The "citations" are mostly web links to promotional stories and sites about the author themselves and several have an "external link" section which links to homepages advertising the sale of the author's book. Recommend deletion of all articles on minor authors per WP:PROMOTION, WP:Notable, and also these have issues I feel with WP:BLP O.R.^Comms 01:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar promotional articles for minor and non-notable authors -O.R.^Comms 02:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Un-notable authors. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 02:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Keep per Northamerica1000.—Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 08:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Eat me, I'm a red bean: Is your !vote based upon source searches and notability guidelines, or is it based upon your personal opinion? Your !vote is vague regarding qualification for deletion of these six articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the refs are to promotional articles and primary sources.—Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 08:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eat me, I'm a red bean: Did you consider the sources and rationales I provided in my !vote below? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (added per Maud Casey being a professor of creative writing and Stephanie Powell Watts as a professor at Lehigh University). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Below is my !voting for these subjects. Also of note is that none of these articles has a promotional tone, in my opinion. Rather, they provide objective, quite neutrally-worded overviews. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Keep Maud Casey – Per criteria #2 of WP:NACADEMICS. The subject has received a Guggenheim Fellowship ([12], [13]). Per the Specific criteria notes section of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), "Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship...". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Keep Jennifer duBois – Per criteria #3 of WP:AUTHOR. The subject's works have received multiple independent periodical articles or reviews: USA Today, The New York Times, Publisher's Weekly, Entertainment weekly, The New York Times, The Dallas Morning News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Keep Amanda Coplin – Per criteria #3 of WP:AUTHOR: The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, The Independent, The Oregonian. Another option is to merge to The Orchardist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Keep Megan Mayhew Bergman – Per criteria #3 of WP:AUTHOR: Boston Globe, NPR, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stephanie Powell Watts – Meets WP:BASIC: Columbia Daily Tribune, The Times-Picayune, The Express-Times. There is also a book review here at Publisher's Weekly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Weak Keep Srikanth Reddy – Per criteria #3 of WP:AUTHOR: Chicago Review, WBEZ. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like Amanda Coplin wrote at least one notable book, so the question here is whether to keep the book article for The Orchardist (which has been around longer) or to merge any pertinent data into the author's article. Both are pretty slim, so I'm leaning towards merging and redirecting the book article into the author's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amanda Coplin. I've redirected the book's page to her article. We can really only have one at this point in time since this is her biggest claim to fame so far. She's won some awards, but I don't know that they'd be major enough to warrant a keep on that basis alone. I've merged the information about the book and if/when she releases more work that receives coverage we can always un-redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maud Casey. She's received enough coverage for her books to where she'd pass notability guidelines. Actually, some of her books would probably merit articles since there's a lot of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment wp:NAUTHOR: "3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." i am providing more than one substantial book review from a reliable source. you need to address a policy reason to delete, not merely that your ignorance of literature should be inflicted upon wikipedia. when writers get reviews in the nytimes or washpost that is a strong indication; what is your standard of author notability? If you do not "like" the policy, then change it, or you could abide by it, or i could make you a laughing stock. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to AfD

Please refrain from personal attacks on this page per WP:CIV. Any editor is permitted to nominate a page(s) for deletion. You are welcome to visit WP:ANI if you feel a policy has been violated or you have been unfairly targeted. -O.R.^Comms 19:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

when you make sweeping claims of non-notability untethered from any policy, and misrepresent what the reliable sources are, it tends to go to the question of your "good faith". i don't go to ANI, rather i'm going to wikiconference usa. user:DGG and others may be there, and i will have some pointed questions for them:
- what is the use of notability criteria, if veteran editors won't follow them;
- what is the point of wp:before, if veteran editors won't follow it, mark it historical;
- what is the hope of finding another Wadewitz, with veteran editors such as this one;
- what do i advise the college librarians at the many editathons i go to? stay away from wikipedia and commons, because of veteran editors like this one, go to wikidata ? Duckduckstop (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as passing WP:AUTHOR.
- Watts: won a notable award; multiple independent newspaper stories about the award; book reviews on Oprah and Publishers Weekly. Saved from BIO1E by having two notable aspects to her story: the book itself and the award for the book.
- duBois: won a notable award; multiple independent reviews in major newspapers listed by North America (these should be added to the article).
- Coplin: won multiple notable awards; multiple independent reviews in major newspapers already in article.
- Reddy: the weakest of the six but I think the two reviews found by North America are (barely) enough.
- Bergman: multiple independent reviews of more than one of her books in major newspapers, already in article.
- Casey: Guggenheim fellow may also be enough for WP:PROF; multiple independent reviews of her books including multiple book reviews in the NYT.

And I agree with Duckduckstop's criticism: this was an ill-informed nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. "Multiple indépendant periodical articles or reviews" have been listed for these authors, as already noted. ABF99 (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Notable authors. -- GreenC 16:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as insignificant. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

on what base , Xxantippe, do you say that? Is having 4 novels published by Simon & Schuster (as did Maud Casey), insignificant? DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for reasons given by OR. It looks like COI or paid editing. -Xxanthippe (talk).

I completely agree. There has been strong suspicion that these articles may have been created to commercially promote the authors. If they are notable, however (which seems to be the way the discussion is leaning), then there would be no reason to exclude them from Wikipedia. -O.R.^Comms 13:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OberRanks, why do you think that? What do they have in common: they're not published by the same publisher, or associated with the same university. They're not even all living, or all of the same gender or nationality. They're in the usual style for mildly notable authors: describe the career, list the books, link to reviews. How else would anyone do it? They don't show the key hallmarks of promotional editing in this field--they do not contain excessively long quotes from reviews, they don't try for reviews in minor local papers, they don't give extensive personal details about the authors motivations or family; there's no significant attempt to write simultaneously separate articles about an author and all their books. --those are the factors I look for in judging articles in this field are likely to be promotional. What standards are you using?

I also look to see who wrote them. Paid editors almost always use a different user name for each article; promotional articles focus on a single narrow subject. The ed. here has writing on a wide range of people in different fields, and various other subjects. I can not identify that any of the editor's articles have ever been deleted, though a few attempted rescues have been. One of our most productive bio editors, and the only coi seems to be an interest in writing for WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all It would be possible to renominate individually if desired. It is absurd to consider authors in different fields and of undoubtedly different degrees of notability in a single afd. But after taking account of the references supplied above, I wouldn't advise it. The novelists, as expected, have reviews; Reddy too is notable: Univ. of Calif. press published two of his volumes of poetry. As poetry publishing goes, that's quite an unusual distinction; one of them, Voyager, a/c WorldCat is in 835 libraries, quite a rare distinction for contemporary poetry. [14]

Duckduckstop, I advise participants in Editathons that WP can be erratic: our method of operations cannot be expected to be consistent. Just as anyone can write an article, anyone can list it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you'll excuse the rhetoric. there are non-notable associate professors with one or two books, but these are not them; no where close to the line. i see this high handed style with newbies all the time; it is quite discouraging, and when you consider that this editor is a veteran, and very well should know better. Duckduckstop (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid cluttering up this AfD page with an unrelated discussion, I placed a response on the talk page. -O.R.^Comms 23:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stephanie Powell Watts Passes WP:GNG with two notable awards to her credit. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as passing WP:AUTHOR. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stephanie Powell Watts at the very least as the winner of two notable literary awards with significant cash prizes. I do not have the time right now to investigate the other writers, but find this group AfD nomination disconcerting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (Non-admin closure). The nominator has withdrawn the nomination, and no other editors have advanced a reason for deletion; therefore, WP:SK#1 applies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narian singh Shahbazpuri

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

~~Unsorced and no indication of notability Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 01:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)~~ I withdraw the nomination. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 09:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is unreferenced and needs a major rewrite, but as an MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for the Indian state of Punjab he is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. I have found this by way of confirmation, but we need better sourcing, which may be a problem for someone who was active in the 50s and 60s; I will leave a message at WikiProject India to see if anyone there can help. JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Passes WP:Politician, verified now. —SpacemanSpiff 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Politicians as per WP:NPOL are generally considered to be notable (except in the hoax cases) where this article is defiantly not a hoax see this and this. It is very challenging to improve the article and find references but this could not be the reason to delete the article. In addition, there are possibility that the person have alternative name spelling or name in local language which includes Hindi and Punjabi. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that sourcing has been provided (I have stricken my earlier posting). Note that the subject's first name is spelled differently in the article title as compared to the spelling in the body of the article. Does anyone know if this is a typographical error? NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Both sources give "Narain", and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL turns up a lot more references than the links for "Narian". The source linked from my !vote above has "Narian", but it is evidently a typo. The article should be moved to Narain Singh Shahbazpuri (sorting the capitalisation at the same time), but not yet because it causes confusion to move an article during AfD. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Geller

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by anon with no rationale. I stand by the fact that this person does meet WP:ARTIST/WP:PROF. No significant, in-depth, reliable coverage. No significant awards. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it can't be improved as my searches found nothing better than this and this. I'm inviting Wikimandia for comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I linked it to his Russian profile. He has sufficient awards at festivals to merit notability based on WP:ANYBIO. The first one I found referred to him as "the famous Russian animator." —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are several Polish-language reviews online that could be translated. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep decent coverage in sources, for example this article and this film festival win where won the grand prize at the Hiroshima film festival: "The Grand Prize of the festival was given to Dmitry Geller for his I Saw Mice Burying a Cat (Russia-China 2011), a bittersweet story of the eternal struggle between cats and mice." Many other non-trivial respectful mentions on film festival web sites, such as this one On the Ottawa international Animnation Festival site (a highly respected animation fest), where they say "Declaration of Love is by one Russia’s most interesting directors, Dmitry Geller...". Such mentions are enough to meet WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media Theorist (talk • contribs) 07:10, September 20, 2015‎ (UTC)
Keep He won enough awards to pass WP:ARTIST and WP:ANYBIO. Dream Focus 21:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Éric Chevillard. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Le vaillant petit tailleur

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

A seemingly non-notable novelization of an old folktale. We have an article on the folktalk at The Valiant Little Tailor, which already contains the full text of this micro-stub on the Le vaillant petit tailleur book. While the book got some positive reviews, I don't see anything suggesting a lasting impact (though, admittedly, I have limited patience for wading through French-language search results). WP is not an indiscriminate bibliographical database, and this can safely be redirected to the author, Éric Chevillard (otherwise it could go to The Valiant Little Tailor, as could virtually any other adaptation, unless, like L'histoire du petit tailleur, it goes to that of a notable creator; the only stand-alone notable one appears to be Disney's short film "Brave Little Tailor").

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Éric Chevillard. Won the prix Wepler in 2003, a literary award but not a major one [15]. No article in frwiki. I could change to keep if someone were to get motivated to write a proper article, otherwise better a redirect than an eternal stub. Vrac (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as although News, Books and browser found some results, it's likely best mentioned at the author's page. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Wood, C (1992) Mitchell, Raymond (IWM interview) catalogue number 12741. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80012473.

[2] Wood, C (1992) Mitchell, Raymond (IWM interview) catalogue number 12937. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80012666.

[3] Conrad Wood, “Ten Years of the Department of Sound Records of the Imperial War Museum” Oral History 11:1 (1983), 12

[4] IWM (2015). Commando despatch rider with 41 Royal Marines Commando in North-West Europe 1944-1945. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/publication/36208.

[5] IWM (2015). Marine Commando Sicily and Salerno, 1943 with 41 Royal Marines Commando. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/publication/30425.

[6] IWM (2015). They did what was asked of them 41 (Royal Marines) Commando, 1942-1946. Imperial War Museum, London. Retrieved Sept 13th, 2015 from http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/publication/25295.

[7] (Thomson, 2001, cited in Mitchell, 2001, p.ix)’

[8] (Ashdown, 1996, cited in Mitchell, 1996, p.8)

[9] (Parsons, 1988, cited in Mitchell, 1988, p.10)

[10] The War Illustrated Edited by Sir John Hammerton

[11] Morris, E (1983). Salerno: A Military Fiasco. Stein & Day Pub: USA.

[12] (Mitchell, 2001, p.11)

[13] (Mitchell, 2001, p.9)

[14] ttp://www.discogs.com/artist/789898-Scrambled-Eggs-3

[15] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[16] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

[17] It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. In the case of a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.

[18] When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]