Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 November	3 November >

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. Biblioworm 16:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Hacker (sculptor)

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

BLP with sourcing issues - unsourced sections, can't easily verify and due to a removed prod without a given reason, just because this needs eyeballs. Widefox; talk 23:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded this with the reason "Fails WP:ARTIST." I also suspect autobio or a least a close COI. I've looked again and stand by my prod. He's got a few works in a couple galleries: [1], [2], he did indeed curate an exhibition in 1986 with passing mentions in the New York Times and New York magazine: [3], [4], NYT, New York, and a bizarre passing mention in the National Enquirer [5]. Even with the things mentioned in the article (many of the links are currently broken), none of this adds up to meeting notability for a biography which needs multiple independent reliable third party sources. Valfontis (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence of works in permanent collection of major museum or evidence of substantial critical work on the artist. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it doesn't pass WP:GNG, and they don't appear to meet WP:NARTIST, as pointed out by DGG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke McGee (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in a WP:FPL (the 2015 MLS All-Star Game doesn't count as an FPL match), thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is a bit WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON and failing WP:NFOOTY per above. clpo13_(talk) 16:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebaz Abdulla

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTY and GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY per nom. clpo13_(talk) 16:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that the article was deprodded by an IP user subsequently rangeblocked at ANI due to serial vexatious deprodding. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm afraid being a class project (if that's the case) is not a sufficient reason for an article to be kept. There has been no work done on the article since nomination to suggest improvements is being attempted. Having said that, if this is indeed work done for a class, I'm willing to userfy it by request later if needed. KTC (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kuttner

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

Does not appear to have the sourcing to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - not even close to meeting WP:CREATIVE, and searches turned up virtually nothing on this person with that name (there was more coverage for an artist and an architect with the same name). Books had some trivial mentions, but he clearly does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is being worked on as part of a class project, let's look at the contributors and offer them a hand; there may be more to this than meets the eye. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. Not even close to WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. By the way, here is his IMDB listing: [6]. Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find a lot of material on a Boston architect by the same name who is not the subject and some passing mentions relating to films which may be the subject. The detail in the article tends to indicate there may be some offline sources. I would like to see the titles of the cites which are simply to ProQuest search. If this is being used as a school project it would be nest to first ask the author on the talk page to list their sources. If they do not post some then I say delete. Jbh ^Talk 14:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC) ce Jbh ^Talk 18:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for limited time only This article seems to be 1 involved in a class project. 146.200.163.2 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning delete I'm not sure this will meet the GNG. There are a few sources out there not cited in the article, but I'm not sure how reliable they are (e.g. an interview in a newsletter which is somehow indexed in google scholar). However I'm a bit disheartened at the calls to speedily delete something made in good faith w/ an attempt at sourcing. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a caveat. I don't see and can't find the sourcing needed to make this pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE, and the fact that it looks like a class project doesn't automatically give it a free pass. Nonetheless, while my efforts to find WP:RS were fruitless, there is the off-chance that the collaborative effort of this class might find other sources, so I wouldn't object to seeing this moved to the Draft namespace for the time being. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an assistant camera technician in a bunch of films does not quite satisfy WP:GNG criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he has been involved in many films 'Assistant Camera Operator' and his other roles in the productions are not significant. I can find nothing of significance on this person and the author has provided no indication of offline sources. Jbh ^Talk 12:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Villain#Sympathetic villain. KTC (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antivillain

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism. The book cited is a thesis, not a normal published book. I see occasional uses of the word "antivillain" but no literature about what it means. The search "antihero is" OR "anti-hero is" gets >9,000 hits in Google Books; the search "antivillain is" OR "anti-villain is" gets 33. Another article on the same topic (different content) was deleted in 2008 for essentially the same reason. This was recently discussed (but without discussion of possible sources) at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_17#Antivillain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There also appears to have been a 2007 deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-villain (not sure how to add it to the box on the right). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added that one to the list of past discussions. Calathan (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Villain#Sympathetic villain. I commented on the source used here during the RfD. The reason why I said it's probably not reliable is because it's someone's M.A. thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I originally advocated a redirect to antihero, but now I think maybe Villain#Sympathetic villain is a better choice. I think "antivillain" is mostly a TV Tropes neologism, and while I think it's a legitimate concept, reliable sources are lagging behind my trailblazing opinions. There are many sources for discussions of sympathetic villains, such as [7] (requires JSTOR subscription to read), but there just isn't enough for an article on antivillains. It does get used occasionally in reliable sources: this article from The Philadelphia Inquirer, this article from Philadelphia Weekly, and this article from Collider.com. However, this is not enough to pass WP:NEO. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note about that JSTOR source I mentioned above: it's basically a passing mention about the use of sympathetic villains in popular culture. I forgot to say this. I brought it up as an example of how the underlying concept is discussed in academic papers, not as any kind of proof of notability of anything. I wanted to make that clear, since it's not freely accessible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Villain#Sympathetic villain, as per NinjaRobotPirate's excellent analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. G11 (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partners for a Green Hill

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this and this and with no signs of better improvement and a move target, there's nothing to suggest keeping this as it hasn't changed much since October 2008. Pinging past users Geo Swan and Ground Zero, environmentalist Velella and lastly also DGG and Bearcat who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Iridescent. A7 (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faik Al-Aboudi

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

Quite questionably notable as there's hardly much here with my best search links only this so unless there's some archived coverage I'm missing, there's not much salvageable for this article from May 2009. Pinging Vrac (nos encontramos otra ves ) and Wikimandia who may be able to help search and lastly DGG who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is a clear A7. Rather than use speedy delete myself, I'm listing it to see if another admin agrees. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given the unanimous "keep" !votes, there doesn't appear to be much use in keeping this open any longer and I withdraw the nomination. Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment

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

Coatrack article to promote studies showing that Nova Publishers are a top publisher. Not a single one of the references is actually about this "research school". Randykitty (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. This is a valid, significant joint program providing Ph.D. education in the Netherlands. Secondary schools world-wide are recogized as Wikipedia-notable. It was (and I presume is) an accredited program, per this accreditation re-application document, which provides much detail useful for developing the article. The accusation in the nomination, that this article is somehow a "coatrack" to support recognition of Nova Publishers as a top publisher, is not supported by the article, which does not mention Nova. To the nominator, could you please explain how you derived your opinion that way?

But I will surmise that somewhere else there is a battle about Nova Publishing, and the ranking here is cited as support for Nova being a good publisher. That would be perfectly valid support, although it is not relevant for evaluating the Wikipedia notability of this higher education program.

The current version of the article does have a relatively long passage about a quality rating system for evaluating academic book publishers which the school supports, which is probably intended for use in evaluating academics for hiring, tenure and promotion decisions in the multiple programs participating in SENSE. That is an entirely appropriate endeavor of a research school, to make such a list, but like other such rating systems used in evaluating publications of academics for tenure and promotion decisions, it is not the purpose of the school per se. By the way there is a quite large literature on Journal ranking and Impact factors and so on about academic journals; it is often relevant to say what any respected institution officially recognizes about journals and also about book publishers. This version of a rating system about academic books is perhaps more significant, as a joint, nation-wide consortium's opinion, than the published ratings of any one school. It would be okay for an article about any one of the higher ranked publishers to cite this SENSE rating as documentation that the consortium of Dutch environmental research departments rates the publisher highly.

However, that passage does not detract from the validity of this article article, which is pretty much a stub otherwise, but which is obviously valid as an article, being about a higher education entity. I look forward to the nominator explaining their view and I could change my opinion about the following. But as of now this AFD smacks of the same kind of nefarious thing that the nomination asserts about the article; it appears that the AFD is an attempt to influence something else somewhere else, and is not about the explicit topic. --do ncr am 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is not an ordinary secondary school as you think. Dutch "research schools" are more comparable to "graduate schools" in the US, for which we usually do not create articles separate from the particular institution to which the school belongs. The one thing particular to the Dutch system is that often several institutions collaborate in one of these grad schools. Also, these schools are not necessarily enduring: after some time has elapsed, it may be closed and replaced by another entity. This can be done easily, because in contrast to an ordinary school, this is not a physical entity (even though the institutions participating in it are physical entities themselves). Also note that, in contrast to what is suggested by the article, these schools are not consortia of whole universities. Rather, fromp each participating institution, just one or a few research groups/departments participate in such a "research school" (Dutch: "onderzoeksschool"). (BTW, I think that puts the book ranking issue in quite a different light, too). So I could see a separate article on the Dutch concept of "research school", but I don't think that we should create articles on each and every one of these "schools", just was we don't do this for grad schools in the US. Hope this doesn't sound too muddled... As for the Nova connection, Andyjsmith has removed the coatrack part, so I'll let that rest for the moment. As the article currently stands, there are hardly any sources, which is rather what I would expect, given the foregoing. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for explaining. I agree about this being a joint venture of departments, not whole universities, which could be clarified in the article. And I have heard that courses for European Ph.D. education programs are loosely cobbled together, in order to offer courses for students spanning across schools from different countries, because their schools are smaller than large U.S. universities which can offer multiple Ph.D. courses. So [at least in one case that I know about] students literally fly in from other countries to attend a class or a few days of classes, then return home, and come back again for the next class session. The Netherlands is a small area and I speculate that students could commute in easily from anywhere in the Netherlands to a Ph.D. course offered in Amsterdam. Perhaps an important difference for this one, vs. other Dutch or pan-European joint ventures, is that this program is formal and accredited. It was accredited for 1997-2001 initially, then reaccredited for 2002-2006, then applied for reaccreditation for another period from 2008 to 2012 or 2013, which it apparently received. This makes it a major formal endeavor and appears not temporary at all. And covering it does not fit within just one university's article like how U.S. Ph.D or masters programs can be covered. About number of sources, I don't perceive that there are a lot of sources used in covering any U.S. graduate program either, even for ones that in fact are of pretty major importance, we just don't cover them much AFAIK. (I don't think we have anything like "List of Ph.D. programs" or "List of environmental sciences graduate programs" type articles.) We often/usually do not create sections about graduate programs within university articles and thus they are not incubated and eventually split out to separate articles. Here, there is no one university article to serve as host for a section that could eventually be split out; it is proper to open it as a separate stub. --do ncr am 16:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All these programs have to be accredited, otherwise they cannot hand out PhD degrees. Each university will be part of several of these grad schools. Grad schools are hardly ever a section in university articles, at best they're just mentioned. There are some international programs, but they are few and usually located in border regions. I don't think any students fly in for a "few days". Some schools/universities/institutes organize a summer course which can be attended by students from all over Europe, but those are generally a couple of weeks, so flying in is economic (but that is not really relevant here). Schools like SENSE are temporary in the sense that their funding depends on performance (i.e., number of grad students trained successfully within a certain limited time period) and renewal of funding is anything but automatic. Should funding not be renewed, the school is not continued (I'm not using the word "closed" deliberately, as this is not a physical entity). There is something weird about the accrediting, but as they don't have a Dutch version of their website, I cannot see whether this is due to an incorrect translation or something else. ("Accrediting" is done at the institutional level and not by the KNAW but by the Education Ministry). --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although there's nothing obvious about it and I note the somewhat checkered history of doncram's interventions. I've taken a knife to the article - one section is a probably copyvio and the other is incoherent, largely irrelevant and a clumsy coatrack attempt (both sections added by doncram, btw). If this material is restored my !vote changes to Delete. Have a nice day. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I think the school / joint program is a large-size Ph.D. program which is obviously to be kept as a Wikipedia topic, as it is much higher level and larger in scope than tiny, obscure high schools that we routinely cover.

Andysmith is incorrect in believing that I was the one who contributed the material about SENSE's rating scheme for academic book publishers, the material that the nominator finds controversial. I commented above about it but it was not mine. I tried to be clear before that it is not the purpose of a school to do rankings like that. It does somewhat appear from the sources that the publication of its ranking is unusual and useful, but the material is not about the school per se. And is best used somewhere else in articles about journal ranking and academic book ranking, and I do not object to it being removed from here. I do now see over at Talk:Nova Science Publishing that the SENSE ranking was indeed used (perhaps over-used) by one or more persons in arguing about the quality of that publisher. I agree with editor DGG there that "It is not a general rating scheme for publications, but a rating scheme for publications to the extent relevant to the Dutch Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment-- that is, in one particular (but fairly wide) subject area." Simply it is not very important, it is one school's ranking scheme devised for its own purposes which happens to be published and seized upon by others. It is fine for editors over there to argue about Nova; it is not relevant to this article about SENSE.

I restored two inline references that I had added but Andyjsmith removed. About one, yes the website is included as an external link but it was the specific source about the fact of accreditation so the inline reference is appropriate. About the second, apparently Andyjsmith did not see that the 600 phD student count was sourced from it.

Also I just restored, but moved and revised, a couple sentences based on the second source about use of Ph.D. students in a crowd-sourcing effort. It is factual and I find it interesting and I think it is unusual, worth mentioning. It could only happen because of the scale of the program, because most Ph.D. programs have only a handful of students. I believe that is one of two passages that Andyjsmith states is a "coatrack" and a deal-breaker for him somehow. I fail to see how addition of an interesting factoid like that makes someone think an article must be deleted, but a closer could choose to interpret Andyjsmith's view as a Delete vote per his instructions. It is not a "coatrack" about anything, anyhow...it does not support adding any material anywhere else in Wikipedia which is what a "coatrack" would do.

I also re-removed the "third-party" tag, as I do not see a single assertion in the article that is questionable [at least now after the ranking passage was removed], and it is fine to use an organization's website to support basics like whether the program is accredited or not. If someone else wants to argue that sources used are biased somehow and that an outside source is needed to support something, I won't remove it again without discussion on the Talk page, but I hope you will please explain which assertion you think needs more support. --do ncr am 15:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Randkitty and doncram, who explain it in detail. Its a European pattern to have these cooperative doctoral programs, especially in smaller countries, which can be very extensive and very important. I agree we should not automatically have every one of them as a matter of course, but this is an example of the ones we should definitely have. 6000 PhD students is a very major educational institution by any standards, there's no way of covering this otherwise, for there is no plausible merge or redirect. Their rating of book publishers was coatrack, and was properly removed--its inclusion was part of a campaign to justify a particular rather low quality publisher as being important by the very strained application of bibliometric data outside their area of validity, but it has been removed. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs further development and improved use of reliable, third-party sources, but is worth keeping in my opinion. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. A7 (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Keogh

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

Non-notable blogger. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as A7 as this clearly has no better signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational Healing

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

Possible original research. Lack of sources. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Without references, how can facts be verified or notability be established? ubiquity (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Meets A7 in my view. No indication of importance. It is also unsourced. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a term, but per WP:NOTDICT, doesn't belong here. And the assertion of who coined the term is completely unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charis Katakis

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

BLP fails WP:GNG. Don't know if this resume style article meets WP:PROF but eyeballs needed to assess. Widefox; talk 21:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply found no better improvement aside from a few Scholar links. Pinging interested subject users Doc James, Drchriswilliams, Casliber, DGG and Anthony Bradbury. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence of notability as scholar or as writer or a therapist. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would need sources to show notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence within the article of significant notability, and as all of the references are self-published living persons biography policy is breached.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article in a peer-reviewed journal from 2008 that provides some verification about the various board roles that she had: Softas-Nall, Lia (January 2008). "A View of Systemic Therapy in Greece: An Interview With Charis Katakis". The Family Journal. 16 (1): 87−91. doi:10.1177/1066480707309125. I have also tried to tidy up the article where I can- some of the text was quite muddled. Without further sources it may be difficult to make progress towards establishing notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP where the best source is an interview so not fully independent. Underscores borderline N/WP:TOOSOON. Thnx all for checking sources. Widefox; talk 12:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Wolf (activist)

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

Page about a political activist. Article was PRODded in 2013, objections were raised on talk page on the grounds that she is a well-known activist, but no actual evidence or sources supporting notability were given. Reliable sourcing consists of a single, 3-sentence article in the The Austin Chronicle, here: [8], it is effectively a caption for a videotape in which she introduces a fellow political activist. Page also has a link to a TV appearance as an activist in a political controversy, here: [9], she appears ~ 3 minutes in. She has also published 2 books with the small, political press, Haymarket Books, but the books do not seem to have gotten any attention (except in the non-notable partisan journal of which she was an editor. here:[10]). There is a list of articles she has published, but I cannot find evidence of notability independent of her own website, her own publications, and the publications of the very small Socialist faction in which she was (is?) active. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Notability. Fails WP:RS. Fails WP:Author PeterWesco (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Gender-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While some of her views are controversial, Sherry Wolf is clearly notable, meeting criteria WP:BASIC. She has published articles in several leading left/progressive magazines, including the The Advocate (print circulation 175,000, online rank 1051 in US [11]), The Nation (print circulation 113,000, online rank 2731 in US [12]), and CounterPunch (online rank 9814 in US [13]). While these publications may not be famliar to everyone, those online numbers are in the neighborhood of e.g the Christian Science Monitor (1174), Scientific American (1546), the New England Journal of Medicine (4305), and BillOReilly.com (7988). The first book listed has not only been reviewed by the journal where she is an editor, but also for example here [14], here [15] here [16] and here [17]. The book has also attracted several reviews on Amazon and Google Books, and it has been cited multiple times in academic journals [18]. The second listed book is an edited volume where she has contributed a chapter, so that one does not count as much. In addition to her writing, she has had several in-depth interviews about her activism, such as here [19] here [20] here [21] and here [22]. A simple google search on her name or book title will generate many more secondary sources as evidence of her notability, not counting the hits generated by her handbag making namesake (Sherry Wolf (artist)).

While notability is a property of the subject and independent of the references provided in the article (WP:ARTN), it should be noted that User:E.M.Gregory, the proposer of this AfD, removed four informative references back in May, that linked to coverage of Ms. Wolf in secondary sources ( compare [23] and [24]). Hence, contrary to his/her statement above, he/she had clearly found "evidence of notability independent of her own website", but chose to remove them from the article. Martinogk (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at the bottom, I went to look at what Martinogk calls "four informative references" [25] deleted from what was, a year ago, an extremely bloated article from which I and others removed a great deal of puffery. The 4 were, in order, a link to an article Wolf wrote for a webzine called "Gaper's Block", a link to article by Wolf in Socialist Worker, a link to her author's page in The Nation and a link to her book's page at her publisher's website. Problem, of course, is that these sources are not independent of Wolf; having articles/books published does not confer notability. Few working journalists are notable, and books confer notability only if the books attract attention in reliable, secondary sources.

Back to the top of Martinogk's argument. The fact that Wolf has written articles does not confer notability on Wikipedia. For a journalist to have a page, we need to find articles that are about her, not articles she wrote. (see WP:AUTHOR).

Which brings us to Martinogk's evidence of the attention garnered by her book, Sexuality and Socialism. Here we can hope find something pertinent. The question, of course, is are these sources independent of Wolf and are they significant publications. Link #9 is to an article by Wolf about her own book. Interestingly, "The Platypus Affiliated Society" (link #7) is the subject of a stale sandbox draft [26]; it seems to be part of the circle of small, Socialist organizations centered in Chicago of which Wolf is part. So it may not be independent, and it certainly was obscure. Link #8 is to a review in International Viewpoint, (someone should query whether that publication passes WP:GNG) But in source #10, a review in Monthly Review Martinogk finally brings a source that counts towards notability. Source #11 shows that Wolf's book is cited in discussions of social activism and sexuality.

Source #13 is part of the ISO, and, therefore not independent. Source #12 is an obscure publication. But I thank Martinogk for bringing sources # 14 and 15. While profile articles would be better, these are published Q & As with Wolf.

Summing up, I still have doubts about whether there is sufficient mention of her to pass WP:GNG, but sources #14, 15, and the book review at source #10 do offer support for an article.@PeterWesco:, @SisterTwister:, do you want to take another look at this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The book review speaks to the notability of the book, not the author. The VV piece is an interview, and therefore a primary source, and invalid for establishing notability, as is the Advocate piece. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and the citation #'s for her work are very low. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Berg

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

Actress who falls under too soon-only one film it seems so far with no page Wgolf (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Delete - searches don't show they pass WP:GNG, and they obviously don't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7, no claim of significance. Tagged. —Kusma (t·c) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether a product is/was successful or a complete failure does not affect its notability, nor for that matter whether it is still in sale. It would really helps if keep !voters put in the sources that are obviously there into the article rather than just point *hey look there*, but nevertheless their arguments does have a basis from glances at Google. KTC (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Ice

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

Was this ever really notable? p b p 20:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but source (or if deleted, without prejudice to recreation with proper sourcing) — passes GNG and WP:CORP due to widespread major mentions in mainstream publications over time. It's a real brand that had real promotion, distribution, and sales, even if a minor one. Admittedly, nobody would care if it were not Donald Trump. If it is part of a Trump family of similar retail brands, or if the maker also licenses other famous names, it could also be merged into a group article listing multiple brands. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - receives significant coverage in reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep if it can be improved somewhat more or also simply redirect to his article. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused by the Keep votes saying there are sources. What sources? The article has none, and none have been provided in this AfD. -- GreenC 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't base your vote on the article itself. Click the "find sources" link above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sources show this is a notable business? -- GreenC 18:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a business. It's a product. Look at all the sources concerning the "care package" Trump recently sent to Marco Rubio. That's not even the half of it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Ice was a company (Google "Trump Ice LLC") selling a product under the same name. Water bottles to Rubio sounds like a case of NOTNEWS cycle.. are there any sources about the company or its product? -- GreenC 19:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Defense Network

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

From WP:OTRS, a contributor writes, "Please review this page for removal, it is clearly a company attempting to promote its business." I am passing this message to reviewers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although News, Highbeam and browser found some links, there's nothing to suggest convincingly better. Pinging interested subject users Bearian and MBisanz. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, does not seem to meet any qualifications of a wiki article of substance other than to promote their business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.51.178 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy - while the subject is arguably notable as a firm, this page is so badly written as to require a rewrite from scratch. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra Kesari

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

No indication this is anywhere close to being a notable wrestling competition. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in the region. Already being improved. There are a number of references available. Shyamsunder (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is large coverage of this event in state and national level Marathi news papers. For example Sakal news has plenty of news related to this event read here list of annual news. Also Maharashtra Times, Lokmat, Loksatta all of these dailies covers this event annually. --Human3015^TALK 13:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Event is notable & article is already marked as a Stub article. - Ninney (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Article also improved now with multiple sources of news coverage from regional papers. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zombinatrix

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

non-notable low-budget film, no indication filming has begun —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

actress:(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)

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

temporary delete While we do have reports of filming locations, their own "Official Facebook" has October reports that casting is still taking place. As its production is getting coverage we can allow a return under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) once we finally have filming confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "press" coverage meets requirements for WP:RS. There's no links, but they all appear to be horror blogs. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that crappy sources do not exist. Acceptable genre sources JobLo [27] and Dread Central [28] speaking toward plans and Back Stage [29] speaking toward casting simply represent its production is getting some coverage. We can certainly wait until filming begins and it gets more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, if creator or editor(s) wish to continue quality improvement efforts on the page. — Cirt (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG, No point userfying considering the sources aren't User can visit refund when the film's released. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR KTC (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway.com Audience Awards

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

{{notability}} tag added by Animalparty. I couldn't find any references on Google. I dream of horses (C) @ 21:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @ 21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently these awards are now called Broadway.com Audience Choice Award [30] (added to Find Sources above) and as its name implies it's awarded by fans (not judges, critics, academy members, etc). While of course notable plays and actors receive the awards, the notability of the awards themselves is dubious (note that Broadway.com is a redirect to its parent company.) The winners are apparently cataloged in at least one exhaustive annual compendium: Theatre World: The Most Complete Record of the American Theatre (e.g. 2006-2007, 2008-2009), which in those two editions simply state: "The Broadway.com Audience Awards give real theatergoers a chance to honor their favorite Broadway and Off-Broadway shows and performers." followed by a list of winners. Seems to me like statistics that are verifiable but not necessarily notable, per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Most news coverage I could find was from Broadway.com itself, and the unaffiliated sources seem to be brief mentions that award was given (e.g. "The production was honored with a 2010 Broadway.com Audience Award as well as a prestigious Drama Desk Award", and "starring Broadway.com Audience Choice Award winners..." but I haven't found evidence the award carries much prestige. I'd say notability is potentially there, but needs stronger demonstration (non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources.), otherwise a simple External link to http://awards.broadway.com (which lists all winners) may suffice. People at Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre might be able to give better perspective on the notability of these awards. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - no sources. DangerDogWest (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan M. Ashe

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. One "references" des not even mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - does not meet notability threshhold. DangerDogWest (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article subject meets WP:GNG by having significant coverage across numerous WP:RS References do include article subject. for example:

-http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/celebrities-line-up-stratford-film-3073017 "Festival director Rowan M Ashe said: “Stratford gave the world Shakespeare. His importance in the role of film as a medium of storytelling is unquestionably enormous." Please check the article and its references on your own. The nominator's statement, '"References" do not even mention article subject." is simply not true. Zpeopleheart (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you can avoid the fact that the "references" are trivial. (e.g., lists, primary, or a single quote - the example you listed above) The references hardly support inclusion into Wikipedia. I'll concede only one reference lacks a mention of the subject. reddogsix (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The reference linked by Zpeopleheart is the only reference currently in the article that is reliable and independent, and it's a passing mention. All the other references are either primary sources or unreliable (IMDb), except the Birmingham Mail source which doesn't mention him. I can't find anything to indicate he meets WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I see no better obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked a few of the refs and he's nowhere to be seen in them. Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KTC (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naila Nayem

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

Hopefully we can get clearer consensus for this as the past two nominations were not exactly acceptable and the best my searches found were this, this, this and this (Bangladesh Today), this (Dhaka Tribune), this (The Daily Star) and this (New Age) and also Dhaka Courier, Daily Sun, The Independent, Weekly Blitz and News Today all found nothing. Pinging Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Kmzayeem, Nafsadh, Davey2010, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Vinegarymass911, Panyd, Omnipaedista, MusikAnimal and Jubair1985. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not invite me in anything related to Naila Nayem, since I have conflicting interest about her. --nafSadh did say 13:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is the Kim Kardashian of Bangladesh. She has done some drama, movie, advertisements and music videos. She is notable regardless how one views her. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per these results [31], Seems to meet GNG (Sorry I've just woke up so cant be arsed to add individual news stories, Thanks ST for the ping.). –Davey2010^Talk 07:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Davey re:GNG and if you search for 'নায়লা নাঈম' rather than 'Naila Nayem' you can see that she meets the criteria for notability for entertainers. Unfortunately, I'd love to expand it based on that search but I'm lacking the language skills :( Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, She appeared in item song in a movie and a single drama. And thats it. She is popular through her facebook page although she does not hold the highest fan base in facebook from Bangladesh, for that I don't think she passes the notability for entertainers criteria. She has not acted any drama or movie. As a editor from Bangladesh, I can vouch for the Deletion of the article. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well she's starred in a few films & music videos & Google seems to prove she's notable... –Davey2010^Talk 12:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She did not acted any movie rather dance item song in a movie (Run Out (film)) and a single drama [32]. Frankly She gained our attention for her bikini poses as a first Bangladeshi model. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. KTC (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Northrup

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

Fails WP:GNG and for too promotional, which raises some potential WP:COI concerns (e.g. "As a varsity athlete at Cornell, Northrup was able to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA during the Fall 2005 semester", "became well known as a rapper", "that became a YouTube sensation", "it became a big story in the legal community") Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep the article clearly meets GNG for a figure in the legal/music community. mentions of Northrup on Above the Law at Above the Law (blog); America Lawyer Media article about him at ALM (company); ABA journal article at American Bar Association Journal; washington post article on RG3 and him; Article on music career; Another article on music career. USA Today on his music career at USA Today; Article from NYU law school; NYU Law Magazine spotlight on Northrup. It amuses me, when rather than make minor edits to an article, someone proposes it for deletion. I have corrected the weasel words that you pointed out. --JumpLike23 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Above The Law and Careerist are blogs and do not qualify as WP:RS. The ABA link is just a re-posting of the material from Above The Law and Careerist. The Washington Post story does nothing to establish notability -- only that he is a big fan of RGIII. The Cornell University website and alumni website do not exactly qualify as independent, reliable media sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that these are not personal blogs and thus they are reliable sources because these are professional journalists--per the guideline. The Cornell stories actually do establiish notability and are further supported by USA today and broadway world. The article is well-written and sourced. Not mention he clerked for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit cf. List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that he was a Prettyman fellow --JumpLike23 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is no wonder to me why experts become frustrated with wikipedia, having written the majority of content on public defenders for wikipedia. Northrup is a notable defender. The nominating user seems to have very little experience in law-related articles, completely brushing aside the ABA journal, the careerist and above the law. See also the discussion on the talk page regarding a revert by the nominating editor. --JumpLike23 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy if needed for now then as Books, News, browser and Highbeam all seemed to have found links but nothing to suggest outstandingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to discuss changes to the article, I would appreciate that. I don't think it needs to become a draft. Of course, those engines reveal sources because he is clearly notable.--JumpLike23 (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - meets some (but not enough) of the factors of my standards for lawyers. His article may be WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serban Ghenea

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

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

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

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

I'm unable to find any sources providing anything close to the coverage required to meet WP:BIO. Several albums that he has worked on have won Grammys but from my reading of WP:NMUSIC this doesn't confer notability on the audio engineer. Searching for sources I came across this which I think mentions him in passing and sums things up quite nicely (my emphasis): "chances are you’ve never heard of ... Serban Ghenea ... Without engineers working in obscurity, an album like Bangerz wouldn’t be anywhere near the charts." He's worked on many notable works, but without any sources discussing how that was anything exceptional, I don't think the subject is notable. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended comments

My view, as the editor who has had severe issues with this article over an extended period is: DELETE. Some of the projects/music he worked on may be notable, but I'm not entirely sure what he does in his capacity as a 'mixer' (it seems to me to be one of those vague industry terms that doesn't particularly describe the extent of the person's involvement). It raises concerns about where the line is drawn.....studio hands who predominantly make tea and get a thanks on the sleeve? My other concern is this person has personal control over their wiki page and are treating it as an extension of their internet presence and manage it in the same way they would their personal website, social media etc i.e. they make brazen edits to suit their personal agenda (paint themselves in as positive a light as possible). I've been attempting to bring it back to wiki's preferred style of neutrality and relevance, however I have been met with extreme resistance (as you can clearly see throughout the history, and their refusal to engage with policies as outlined on the article and their talk pages previously. I know this isn't necessarily grounds for deletion, however if there is any doubt about notability, i believe this is a valid point to sway fence-sitters as this article will just attract the same person in various manifestations who will continue behaving in this manner and threaten the integrity of the article/site. Additionally you can see here on the 2nd google result (the first being wiki), it's a profile page written by his agent with a prominent link to the wiki page, meaning that they consciously view it as a major part of the artist's internet presence.http://www.aaminc.com/clients/detail/serban_ghenea

Rayman60 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting the page, please explain how it can be fixed. It is unnecessary to delete something that is factual. Not all of us are accomplished editors and mistakes are made, but without clarity, it is difficult to fix.

What is it you don't like? Is it that you don't know what a mix engineer is? There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to mixing engineers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixing_engineer. It is shortened to "mixer" instead of "mixing engineer" - if that is the issue with Serban Ghenea's page, then it can be changed to "Mixing Engineer." Or is it you don't believe he is one? Here is his allmusic page which proves in fact that he is a mixer and verifies work that he has done - http://www.allmusic.com/artist/serban-ghenea-mn0000001497/credits. Or is it that his discography is not in a table format? That can easily be fixed.

Contrary to your belief, being a mixing engineer is a notable thing across the industry, it is not a thanks on the sleeve. It is the final stage of the production process before mastering. They are always credited on the album, typically with the producer. You can buy every album listed and 100% of the time you will see on the label copy: "Mixed by Serban Ghenea"

Please advise instead of deleting.

--Hannahgracevc (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Here Hannahgracevc wrote "I work for their management company, AAM" which represents Serban Ghenea. I should probably have noted that this AFD was instigated after Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Serban_Ghenea. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. I am sorry but I have replied previously on my talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cavalino06, and requested clarity regarding what the issue is in order to correct and improve this page but never received a response. Perhaps I didn't reply/inquire in the correct place? Please help clarify what the problems are. I would be happy to help fix the page and remedy the issues if they were made clear.Thank you!

--Cavalino06 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)— Cavalino06 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps we should nominate al these mixer's pages for deletion as well!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lord-Alge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Tan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Elmhirst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Pensado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lord-Alge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_Stent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Needham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaycen_Joshua

Some are better than others but they are all in different formats and some just as long and extensive, However none are as well referenced as Serban's page. Nothing in this article is meant to be promotional as everything is factual and verifiable. Every claim is referenced. If you do not believe so, please explain what is missing.

-The works listed can be verified using the provided Allmusic.com link in the External Links section. -Grammy claims are linked directly to the NARAs and LARAS websites which list Serban Ghenea's awards. -All artists, album's, and songs are linked directly, (where possible), to their corresponding wiki articles. -Every chart position is linked directly to the Billboard, or other chart's sites where claim is verified.

Would it help to reformat the article? Is one format preferred over another?

With regards to COI, how is that to be avoided? Couldn't anyone contributing to an article be considered having a close connection to the subject? Should we expect that people who do not know the subject will create and maintain pages? Would it help to remove the representation / management reference?

Please help. Thank you.

--Cavalino06 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would take out three things for starters – (1) the reference to the management company, which has no relevance to the article and is pure promotion (this definitely has to go); (2) all the references to various Billboard charts, as the chart positions of the records aren't relevant either, and don't prove one way or the other that Ghenea worked on those records (although I do not doubt that he did); (3) the Grammy Awards, because I think those go to the artist and not to the engineer/mixer of the record? So I'm not sure what is left after that that would make the article a keep. Richard3120 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman60 seems to have an editorial problem here; You say "but I'm not entirely sure what he does in his capacity as a 'mixer' (it seems to me to be one of those vague industry terms that doesn't particularly describe the extent of the person's involvement)." So you yourself admit you are not qualified to make editorial decisions regarding this subject. Mr. Ghenea is one of the most prolific, successful, and in demand music mixers extant. The wikipedia page is a container of facts; You seem to want personal biographical information added, but this is not the desire of the subject of the article and is not relevant to this section on music personalities.

SmartSE; You say "Several albums that he has worked on have won Grammys but from my reading of WP:NMUSIC this doesn't confer notability on the audio engineer" You are wrong. They Grammys, and the TEC awards, are the mark of success in a business where audio engineers receive little outside-the-industry recognition and in a online world, increasingly less. You are also mistaken in that Mr Ghenea himself has won 8 Grammy awards for his work, that is not just things that he has worked on winning; these are awards placed in his hands with his name on them. This IS Notable!

You will see that I am also connected to the subject, and I'm sure you will have complaints about that. Should we get a panel of Music Industry heavyweights to come and show their support here? We could do that, but that seems to me that it would be more of this 'painting themselves in a positive light'

The Wikipedia notice says that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." This is an encyclopedic page and it is all verifiable; links in the references section and article go to the best available information for proof. Johnhanes (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

″Comment: I would take out three things for starters – (1) the reference to the management company, which has no relevance to the article and is pure promotion (this definitely has to go); (2) all the references to various Billboard charts, as the chart positions of the records aren't relevant either, and don't prove one way or the other that Ghenea worked on those records (although I do not doubt that he did); (3) the Grammy Awards, because I think those go to the artist and not to the engineer/mixer of the record? So I'm not sure what is left after that that would make the article a keep. Richard3120 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)″

I would agree that the management contact should go. The references to Billboard are relevant and notable. These are the metrics on which our industry is measured. If I were doing an article on a famous track athlete, wouldn't I want to show where the placed in various races or events? Grammy awards do go to mixers and engineers and have very specific guidelines as to who is eligible; it is a high bar to make and confers a great deal of respect and admiration for their work. The first two links in the references section go the the Grammy and Latin Grammy winners search showing he did indeed winJohnhanes (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the Grammys: Ghenea's name does indeed appear on the Grammys search. So the first two references are fine, but I still say the other 148 are irrelevant and should go. The point is that Ghenea is not mentioned in any of them, so they don't provide verifiability. Yes, of course you would want to to show where a track athlete placed in various races, but in order to do that you would have to provide a link to a reliable website or newspaper article that states the athlete's position BY NAME. Richard3120 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where should we find this information? Links to Allmusic.com and Discogs.com pages have credits and are currently the industry standard for credit information. Links go to artist pages that should show credits, but often don't. Should we go to each artist and album page and add credits to those? How is that information verified? Is a Wikipedia page a verified source for another Wikipedia page? We in this industry wish there was a better place to show our accomplishments, our credits accurately; without such a place, we turn to the Internet Encyclopedia. There is no newspaper posting album and song credits; we link to the best sources available. It may not be convenient, but that is not under our control. Johnhanes (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the issue here: it's not up to Wikipedia to find this information, it's up to the editors who want to add this information to find it themselves. And no, another Wikipedia page can't be used as a verified source, because that creates a WP:CIRCULAR argument.

I don't have anything against Ghenea, it's clear from the list of records that he has worked on that he is a notable and respected engineer within the industry. And it's a real shame that there aren't more awards and the like to recognise the impact the "backroom staff" make. But unfortunately it's not Wikipedia's business to try and rectify that situation, sorry. Richard3120 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120, Thank you for the constructive suggestions. I understand and agree with you as well, regarding the removal of any representation references and will do so. However, in your first post, above, you then said "(2) all the references to various Billboard charts, as the chart positions of the records aren't relevant either, and don't prove one way or the other that Ghenea worked on those records (although I do not doubt that he did)". That is exactly what the Serban Ghenea at discogs.com, and AllMusic.com, references in the External Links section are for. To prove involvement on the projects. These sites get metadata direct from the record labels and can not be user modified. The data is as straight "from the horses mouth", as it gets. All the credits can be verified there. The chart websites verify the individual song/album performance. "Grammy.com Winners Search", and "Grammy.com Latin Winners Search" links verify the awards. All the facts are verifiable. Now if we can agree that the verifiability and notability requirements are met, what else can be done to improve the article?

Cavalino06 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what i am reading here is shocking.

This (these?) ‘editor(s)/subject’ is/are now on the back-foot and is/are desperately clutching at straws to defend their presence here.

They have had plenty of opportunity over time to engage with the rules - there’s no overcoming the fact that this is not a SPA/COI issue and even if the artist did justify a page (which I believe should only be debated by established editors), they should not aggressively be driving the content - especially as ‘editors’ with no proven interest in project wiki.

Like i said before, ‘mixer’ is one of those those generic terms a la producer - it could be the person who writes, creates, performs and drives the track, or it could be the person who brings it all together without contributing much to the overall finished article. ‘Mixer’ is far further down the food chain of a finished musical track, and in terms of the avril lavignes and lifehouses of the world, may be a very insignificant role not worthy of praise. like i say, i’m not fully in tune with the intricacies of contributions at this scale of this type of music to pass judgement, so i’d like to hear from a proven NEUTRAL contributor on the actual relevance of this. I have to say as someone passionate about music and curious about the process of creating it, I have never really come across much about mixers and masters and engineers etc. Few have gone to such lengths to create such a positive image for themselves on here. As an example, there’s a mastering engineer/audio engineer who's worked on some outstanding releases for ~20 years, highly regarded and respected by a large number of top artists, but google him+wiki and you might find the occasional article where his name is mentioned as part of the credits, but no article of him, no extended list of his work anywhere else other than forums, linked websites, discogs etc. To me, that is where the limit of these insanely protracted lists belong. Not on wiki. I can understand if someone like Kevin Bacon has such a list detailing their entire career, but he’s in a different league to subject, to such a degree that his filmography IS considered encyclopaedic.

I think there’s no doubt about the motives of Cavalinho06 (an account created to give some veneer of respectability to the edits purely by the fact that it is registered and not an IP editor)….and the ridiculous claim that they were unable to appreciate the issues raised (admittedly I had forgotten to link to SPA/COI and teahouse as I normally do) is merely a cover, as this info is freely available to any committed and interested editor. Surely common sense and general knowledge dictates that you cannot edit your own wiki page in any manner you see fit when it is about you - and when you are challenged on this, the initial action should be to investigate this further to ensure you’re not breaching policy. I have on occasion listed in my edit summaries to not automatically revert them, but they have been summarily ignored. Their activity over more than a year betray any false tail-between-the-legs sentiments they may display today with their backs against the wall.

There is some irreverent mention about having music heavyweights back up their position. Please feel free to start your own website or propose changes to global policies on wiki via appropriate channels, but don’t use that as an argument to justify your actions. Policies will not be suspended on a case-by-case basis to suit your agenda.

Who is Johnhanes???? A neutral editor who felt compelled to jump in on this issue as their first contribution? Or a sock-puppet to support the cause of this COI/SPA with utter disregard for neutrality and every other wiki philosophy? This just nails home the point I’ve been making about this article. I may occasionally jump in with bold attempts to wiki-fy the article, or occasionally (only previous time being ~30 months ago) request the attention of senior editors, but they are busy volunteers, and this is a determined and stubborn person with an agenda, so this is a difficult battle for a concerned editor to engage with. If they can mobilise such a diverse and disparate set of ‘uninvolved' ‘editors’ at such short notice, they are equally able to launch an assault an an unanticipated moment in the future, time when genuine editors are tied up with real life or other editorial considerations…..As editors/volunteers/occasional contributors with a diverse range of interests both here and elsewhere, we have different levels of dedication to this article compared to the determined subject, so ultimately they may just adopt their previous tactic of biding their time, and in 6 months we may find ourselves with this same poor standard of article making a mockery of the rules that guide the content of articles.

There are so many issues with this article, with its associated editors, with contraventions to rules, an on-going and frankly never-ending abuse of basic principles.

I appreciate that there are other examples may also not meet wiki standards, and thank you for bringing them to our attention, rest assured I will apply the same rules to them in the near future, but they are fallacies of irrelevance and thus do not support your argument.

I have thought about many other ways to defend this article from this horrendous abuse, such as semi-protect, however that’s a temporary measure against vandalism and moot in light of cavalinho’s qualification to bypass this by means of time registered. There are few tools we have in defence of their subterfuge because in the past we’ve had editors who’ve stepped in either here or in other COI issues i’ve been involved in (and this seems to be endemic of musicians of this particular level of reverence) and over time their interest or attention has waned, so my concern is this subject will once again ride out the storm created by this challenge and once again commandeer this article to suit their own means.

I have zero confidence that any attempt to curb the content of this article will have any effect because the combined forces of the subject/their hired team; they will consistently monitor this article and continue to attempt to drive it towards their own ideal and resist any changes. Therefore, as long as it meets any delete criteria, it is safest to delete in order to protect the integrity of this project. If the consensus is against delete, I believe senior editors should wiki-fy the article, clear the PR fluff, and find a way to prevent the COIers interfering in future (this will be a considerable undertaking given their determination to disregard all rules up to this point).

Whatever the decision is regarding keeping/deleting, I believe Cavalinho and its sockpuppets should be prevented from ever touching this article again, and custodianship passed to genuine editors who can maintain some degree of neutrality in tone, encyclopaedic in content and rationality in length otherwise this entire exercise will be an exercise in futility, as has been my attempts for the last 3 years.Rayman60 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman60; you say "or it could be the person who brings it all together without contributing much to the overall finished article. ‘Mixer’ is far further down the food chain of a finished musical track, and in terms of the avril lavignes and lifehouses of the world" You are so ignorant of this subject it is ridiculous that you are putting yourself in charge of the editing here. The "Mixer" is THE person that puts the "Finish" on a musical track. After the mixer, it goes to the mastering engineer who assembles the album, may do overall balancing, (which is then checked and approved by the Mixer again) and/or adds ISRC codes and then to the printing plant. There is no process after the mixer that has much effect at all on the "finished musical track". Your ignorance of this entire subject shows that you are acting on your opinions, not on facts, and that you should remove yourself as you are not acting in a "neutral tone". You also say that we "continue to attempt to drive it towards their own ideal and resist any changes" Our "ideal" is to present factual information that is of interest to people in the business of music. Johnhanes (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is most shocking is that Rayman60 continues to stand on a pedestal spewing excrement, about promoting a "Neutral Tone", while repeatedly hacking away at an article based on his opinion without any attempt to correct when requested. This should be considered vandalism. Rayman60 says, "I have to say as someone passionate about music and curious about the process of creating it, I have never really come across much about mixers and masters and engineers etc." His self admitted interest and ignorance on the subject of the music production process, should be reason enough to ban him from editing articles pertaining to music if he is going to let his opinions based on ignorance guide his decisions. Not everything is cut and dry! Rayman60 clearly has an agenda here. It is clear that he doesn't believe achieving #1 records and albums or winning 8 Grammy awards is notable, so that should be deleted. It is also clear that he didn't bother to follow the links and check that any of the claims are verifiable, so those must be rubbish as well, and had to be deleted.

He says he has been trying to clean up this article for 30 months but the history shows his first edit as Rayman60 was in October 2014. At that time he deleted 90% of the article, citing (excessive list, lots of unreferenced claims). The same references existed then as they do today. When asked to please clarify and explain how the page can be improved, no response... The COI issue is understood and agreed, so the management reference was removed yesterday, only to be undone this morning by Rayman60, citing, (Undid revision. I think the article in its entirety should stand whilst the debate is played out....attempts at removing obvious infarctions may be viewed as subtle subterfuge whilst opinions are being forged). Even though the tag at the top of the page states, "Feel free to edit the article..." This article has been edited and contributed to by 30 to 40 individual editors since 2008 so the argument that it is purely promotional is ridiculous. Rayman60 decided that Mr. Ghenea is not notable. Easy to do if you remove all of his, "excessive list" of accomplishments from the article. This list only highlights the most "notable" achievements (which was/is fully referenced and verifiable), as the complete list or discography of approximately 800 projects exists at discogs.com and all music.com.

Rayman60 says, "I can understand if someone like Kevin Bacon has such a list detailing their entire career, but he’s in a different league to subject, to such a degree that his filmography IS considered encyclopedic." It is sad that, just because he is not familiar with or understands what Mr. Ghenea's contribution is, Rayman60 considers this individuals impressive list of achievements to be excessive and not worthy of presentation in a place that strives to be factual and verifiable. How does this behavior promote a "Neutral Tone" on Wikepedia??

This is not back-pedalling or "clutching at straws", The reason we are talking about this today is because Rayman60 wouldn't engage in a discussion previously. If it wasn't for Richard3120, nothing constructive and positive would have come out of this discussion.

Cavalino06 (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman60: you say "I can understand if someone like Kevin Bacon has such a list detailing their entire career, but he’s in a different league to subject, to such a degree that his filmography IS considered encyclopedic." So sad that you think only people that you have heard of are deserving of recognition by others in the world. Johnhanes (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Cavalino06: @Johnhanes: If you want your arguments to have weight here you need to understand that with the present sourcing Ghenea doesn't meet the general notability guideline which is the gold standard for whether a topic should be included in the encyclopedia. WP:42 explains as succinctly as possible what is required. My knowledge, Rayman60's knowledge and your own knowledge is of no relevance to this discussion since Wikipedia relies on previously published works for information. Unless it can be demonstrated that someone independent of Ghenea has written in-depth about his work, then we shouldn't have an article about him, regardless of how many notable tracks he has worked on. Please stick to providing new sources if they are available and note that this discussion isn't about the content of the article, which should be discussed on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smarse: Ok, then, adding sources now regarding notability and mentions in popular media Johnhanes (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Based on the Wikipedia policies presented, particularly those outlined under WP:MUS and Wikipedia:Articles_for_Deletion, I don't understand why there is a push to have this entry deleted rather than edited and supplemented with additional sources. The only potential issue with this entry is notability, but the sources already posted citing Ghenea's involvement in high-profile works should at the very least demonstrate that it may require more editing and sources, not deletion. I understand the COI issue, so shouldn't this page be listed for review to be edited by a neutral party instead of listed for deletion?

I’d like to note that I am simply commenting on a talk page and I have never edited Serban Ghenea’s Wikipedia page, so this is not meatpuppetry which you claimed I was doing on another sockpuppet page @Smartse:. --Hannahgracevc (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:42 is an essay and arguably, in another essay, WP:NOT42, says it shouldn't be mentioned in an AfD debate as it arguably represents the notability guidelines as being somewhat stricter and somewhat more unequivocal than they really are.

Under notes for WP:42, it states "This is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; please defer to such in a case of inconsistency with this page." This essay should not determine if this page should be deleted or not. --Hannahgracevc (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links now sourced; this will be ongoing as time is found to continue the work. Johnhanes (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a small role on a notable album does not address WP:GNG, especially the "significant coverage" part. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More extended comments

Serban Ghenea does not play a "small" or "insignificant" part of the mix process. A mix engineer is a very clearly defined role -- they take hundreds of separate audio tracks and craft them into the finished product that we hear. A mix engineer is not someone who gets coffee or who is far down the food chain -- they are one of the most critical pieces of a finished product. Serban has more Billboard #1 hits to his credit than just about any other mix engineer out there, and this is a verifiable fact. His discography is tremendous, spanning the top grossing records of the last 20 years and the world's most influential artists. The fact that one or two people's ignorance about a subject is ruling here goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. Just because I am ignorant of the details of nuclear physics doesn't mean I have the right to delete that page saying "who cares, it's not notable in my, extremely biased opinion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.239.141 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand that the role of a mix engineer is important on an album, the fact remains that Ghenea is virtually unknown outside the industry, and it isn't Wikipedia's job to try and get more recognition for him by listing all the albums he has worked on. You are right, you wouldn't have the right to delete an article on nuclear physics because the consensus would be to keep it. But that's because we can find many articles in science journals, newspapers, etc. to provide reliable sources for the Wikipedia article. Whereas with Ghenea, we have two mentions on the Grammys website, and that is it. That's why it doesn't pass notability: simply linking to a record's chart position on Billboard doesn't "prove" Ghenea worked on it because his name is not mentioned anywhere, although I stress again I personally have no doubt of his involvement. That's the real issue here – finding reliable sources and facts that prove his notability and to create a decent Wikipedia article that isn't just a list of records he has worked on, because you can go to http://www.allmusic.com/artist/serban-ghenea-mn0000001497 or http://www.discogs.com/artist/105435-Serban-Ghenea for that – the Wikipedia article should be a rounded biography of his life and work (fully referenced, of course), but John Hanes has stated above that is exactly what the artist doesn't want, so it leaves us with a bit of a conundrum. Articles like this would be perfectly acceptable to use in creating an article on Ghenea: strip away all the technical stuff and you could use it to say how he started out working with Teddy Riley, that his first ever session was for New Kids on the Block, etc. – but you would need more interviews like this to really build up a decent article. Richard3120 (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: perceived importance ≠ notability as defined by Wikipedia. See WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing better than some behind the scenes work and nothing to suggest a currently better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 17:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Con of the North

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

This has been tagged for notability for 8 years (on and off). It has been to AfD twice with no consensus - the last time it had poor participation (only nominator and creator). If there is no consensus and reasonable participation, I think it would be best to remove notability tag. However, I couldn't verify that this is WP:NOTABLE in any way. No suitable redirect targets as the Lists of x require an aritcle for inclusion. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty clearly non-notable. Citations on the page are all non-reliable or primary source, except for that single article by the local newspaper. But that article is just run of the mill coverage for a local event, which of course you would find in any community newspaper in most cities in the world. My own searches turned up nothing better with which to expand the article. Even that community newspaper doesn't seem to cover this event every year, the article is from 2008. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Looks like a lovely local event, but the references are all either primary sources, self-published, or fairly trivial coverage in local press. I can't find anything better. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nsteffel (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, as the majority of sources are not WP:RS (or minor coverage in local news) and other, better sources could not be found through an internet search. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The scope of the article obviously needs to be more clearly defined, but there's no consensus for deletion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comeback (sports)

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

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Comeback can be used not just for sports, and let me point out there there isn't an article on it for non sports instances. What constitutes a sports comeback is also a matter of opinion. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's one of those "unofficial" statistics, isn't it? Not kept by leagues, but fastidiously, by fans. Pandeist (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact we could have a page on fourth-quarter comebacks alone!! Pandeist (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. It's subjective, encyclopedias are objective. In order to keep this, we need a definition of "greatest", within the context of sports comebacks, that's what most people would consider indisputable.--John, AF4JM (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We have pages on thinks like List of films considered the best do we not? "We" don't need a definition, we simply need to point to a definition supplied by somebody else of the sort we'd normally point to for this sort of thing. Pandeist (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By way of example, here's what I believe is generally considered a good source for this site -- Bleacher Report, listing its picks for "greatest sports comeback".

Bleacher Report fails WP:RS. You also link to a blog up above. That isn't a RS either per WP:SPS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why does Bleacher Report fail RS? What makes it unreliable? It's used thousands of times on Wikipedia pages. Anyway, I'm sure you could find RS sources even you couldn't pan which account "greatest comebacks." How about USA Today? Huffington Post? Pandeist (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also the Telegraph and MSN (although they mix together career and event comebacks). In fact, career comebacks might also be included (I'm looking at you, Michael Jordan and Brett Favre). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the intent of this article. It is not a list article, and is not intended to list the "greatest comebacks"; it is merely intended to explain what a "comeback" is in the context of sports competitions, and how and why they happen. A comparable article would be home advantage. It can and should include examples of events identified as significant comebacks, for the purpose of illustrating what would constitute a comeback in various sports where such a thing is possible. I have added some references to actual academic studies, which should aptly demonstrate that the "comeback" in sports is a phenomenon worthy of examination. This also meets the "objectiveness" criteria suggested by User:AF4JM. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. In that context I can agree with keep, although I think the prose in the article as it is today needs a little more work to get there.--John, AF4JM (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable and well-sourced. shoy (reactions) 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Collapse_(sports) a few months ago (although I can't see the debate at the page for some reason), and comeback falls into the same category of a subjective sports statistic. What I see at the moment is a dictionary definition of a comeback, and a grab-bag of semi-relevant statistics attempting to draw some trends. Then I see sport-by-sport sections which give a brief introduction then launch straight into the subjective/unofficial lists of examples. I don't see a basis for an encyclopedic article here. Aspirex (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike "collapse" (and comparable to Choke (sports)), this phenomenon has been the subject of peer-reviewed published academic examination, cited in the article. If it is suitable for an academic paper topic for multiple papers, then it is suitable for an encyclopedia topic. bd2412 T 14:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I disagree. So an academic paper has done a statistical analysis and concluded that there are final period comebacks of indeterminate size (presumably 1-point three-quarter-time basketball deficits are counted in that) in 20% of games in three unrelated cherry-picked sports – that's just WP:INDISCRIMINATE statistical material which, in the article right now, fails to support any meaningful point; the fact that it's come from an academic source instead of a newspaper or online sports blog does not impress me. Aspirex (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG, but I do think there's potential to convert this to a broader article about the concept of a comeback in general (i.e. not limited to sports, but the narrative device/trope that applies to sports -- after all, sport is drama)to avoid becoming a coatrack/collection of ideas united only by a term (rather than a single concept). But that's not directly relevant to this AfD, which is about sports comebacks -- and sports comebacks look to be supported by quite a lot of sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The key challenge I perceive is a lack of a underlying common concept, beyond the dictionary definition. Going into details for each sport regarding how a comeback can occur feels a lot like an exploration of the rules for each, which seems like a lot of detail for a general concept article. Listing specific comeback instances seems like giving undue weight to hand-picked examples. isaacl (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples are generally those "hand-picked" by independent reliable sources, not by Wikipedians. Several of those sources have compiled overlapping lists of notable comebacks, so whatever weight is given is the weight these sources have given. The common concept is not merely the definition of what a comeback is, but the sourced description of the phenomenon as one of the most dramatic things in sports. bd2412 T 05:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The tricky aspect of using sports journalism as sources is that it has a promotional aspect to it that isn't well-suited for a neutral point of view. "Greatest X" lists are notorious for this, often being written as human-interest stories rather than expressing a serious editorial viewpoint. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on an analysis of the emotional tension and release of the phenomenon, as this would better unify the concept across sports. isaacl (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that additional discussion of the emotional nature of the event would improve the article, and will look for sources on that aspect. I also agree that sports journalism has a promotional element, but it is still journalism. The point of including examples from those lists is not to showcase the "greatest" comebacks in the sports represented, but to provide an unequivocal example of what constitutes a comeback in various sports (in much the same way Score (sport) lists the kinds of scores tallied in various sports). Cheers! bd2412 T 17:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note though that even a run-of-the-mill comeback is still a comeback; focusing solely on exceptional ones is misleading with respect to the overall concept. I suggest the text should avoid describing examples as "greatest", to avoid the impression that the article is a compendium of the greatest comebacks. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, there are no compilations of run-of-the-mill comebacks, so selecting examples of those would be a bit trickier. In most sports, a team that is down by a score or two at the half, and prevails, could be described as having made a comeback, but there is definitely a gray area as the disadvantage overcome gets smaller. However, no sports writer will dispute that the 2004 American League Championship Series, the 2013 America's Cup, or the 1993 Bills-Oilers playoff game, were examples of a "comeback" within those sports. That said, here is an example of a rather run-of-the-mill comeback being described by the writer as one where "[t]here could not be a better example of a comeback after having their backs against the wall in the first innings than this". bd2412 T 18:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Finding ordinary comebacks is easy and doesn't require a special compilation source as they happen every day. There is a potential due weight concern in singling some out, but even everyday occurrences can benefit from real examples. But honestly I don't see a lot of explanation required for sports with an ongoing scoreboard—the history of the score illustrates if a team came back from a disadvantage. More interesting would be a sport like sailing, I think, where the relative positions of the boats with respect to each other and the wind determine who has an advantage. isaacl (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Liz. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 20:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnographic Museum of Lefkasio

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

I could verify that this exists, and could find it listed on a couple of websites which list all museums in Greece (or at least a large number of them). I could not find anything like the kind of coverage to meet WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. I added its first reference today and it has been tagged for notability (by Edison) for over 7 years. I contacted relevant Wikiprojects and creator months ago about this and a series of others, but as I can't establish its notability, feel it's time for AfD. I always hope to be proved wrong with museums and worthy organisations though. Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Campbell (film editor)

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

As it stands, the article is basically a list of films cribbed from IMDB. There are a few works on this list that may establish notability via criterion 3 of WP:CREATIVE, but there are no reliable sources to show what exact role he played in creating those works. clpo13_(talk) 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply nothing better. Pinging tagger Piotrus and likely interested users Rms125a@hotmail.com and Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence of notability. Quis separabit? 02:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 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. Thanks for AfDing this, the prod was removed by an anon who mass deprodded a number of articles, probably a marketing spam / paid editor / sock trying to make our life more difficult. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Semiconductor

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY. I can't find any independent news sources on this organization to fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. clpo13_(talk) 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. Pinging past user DGG. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. there is no single successor to merge to -- it was sold off in parts. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn clpo13_(talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HDMK

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

The main claim to notability in the article is the firm's relationship with Chad Kolton. Per WP:COMPANY, notability for companies can't be inherited from people related to them, and there is nothing to suggest this company is notable on its own. clpo13_(talk) 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as there's information to suggest notability. clpo13_(talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I see nothing in the article to that effect. It is the references which attest to the notability. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that in reference to the fact that the article is almost entirely a mention of people involved in it, implying that it's notable because of them. That's not enough to satisfy WP:COMPANY, which requires more than being associated with notable (or semi-notable) people. clpo13_(talk) 19:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point was to explain where the initials H, D, M, and K originally came from. The firm does still make the news in Washington on a semi-regular basis.[33] Frankly, I only stubbed this out because they were related to the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund back during the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. It's not like they just bake cookies or anything, and I'm sure they'll get up to some sort of hijinks during the election cycle in 2016. If not, I'm happy to revisit this a couple of years from now. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, well that makes sense. I'm going to go ahead and withdraw this AfD for now. clpo13_(talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 17:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeylandAlliance

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements per WP:COMPANY. clpo13_(talk) 15:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging tagger Piotrus. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Thanks for AfDing this, the prod was removed by an anon who mass deprodded a number of articles, probably a marketing spam sock trying to make our life more difficult. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. one minor award--not sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XEMGT-TV

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

Call sign doesn't exist, this is an automated translation of an article that was speedy-deleted from eswiki: es:XEMGT-TV. Delete as hoax. Vrac (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XHUGTO-TV, this is an evident hoax created by an editor who's already been blocked on es: for creating hoax articles about nonexistent Mexican television stations. As just one example of the obvious problem here, TBS is a single cable channel, not a network which has separate individual affiliated television stations — and it's an American service, so even if it were a network in the latter sense the only way it would ever have any affiliate in Mexico would be on the Tijuana-San Diego loophole. But this station isn't claimed as being in Tijuana. Plus there's the matter of the almost completely incomprehensible writing style. Delete, and give strong consideration to blocking the creator as a hoaxing hoaxer who hoaxes. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete Alexf^(talk) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Shahzad Tariq

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

That seems weird, references without reference links. 333 -blue 13:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it's just a copy of Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) with one or two names changed. --McGeddon (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Looks like a hoax. Google searches on the name just find this article and various social media entries relating to people with this, or similar, names. No evidence of notability. Neiltonks (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtida Gautam

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Though there are many references on the page, only a few blogs actually mention the person. The author has one recently written self-published book and nothing else and - by all appearances - is using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. regentspark (comment) 13:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are serious issues here regarding WP:COI and the use of multiple accounts for promotional purposes on related articles. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least as News and browser found a few links but certainly not enough. Pinging tagger Nepaxt and interested subject users LaMona, Tokyogirl79, Yash!, AKS.9955 and Human3015. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There is an assertion of notability here via her writing for various TV shows, but I can't really find anything to show how involved she was in the process. There can be many, many writers on a team, some that take major roles while others do cleanup. Unfortunately it can be difficult to find information on people in India, especially if they're not mainstream. Other than a notification of an event, I can't really find anythign to show that she's ultimately notable enough for an article at this point in time. It also doesn't help that the article history was almost entirely written by a sockpuppet and was likely created by another. I have no true issue with this being recreated if WP:RS can be provided that back up the claims of notability, but this looks to be too soon for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person's not notable. And, the author has a conflict of interest issue. //nepaxt 15:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am inclined to say that this is WP:TOOSOON and not notable at the moment. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring the sock puppetry and promotional edits, it seems too soon for an article right now. Being featured in The New Indian Express is a good start, but it's not yet a strong enough claim to notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per NinjaRobotPirate. Ya sh ! 04:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Almost entirely a copyvio from their website. We can not keep this, either in mainspace or as a draft. With respect to promotionalism, it is only a little more promotional than many university articles, most of which seem to be written by the PR staff--though a few are from alumni, usually over-enthusiastic alumni. Cleaning all these up will be a long business, but this article, particularly outrageous in both the promotionalism and the copyvio, is a good place to start. Reducing to a stub is an option for copyvio, but when its bad as here, it is better to start over. It would merit an article: major campus of large universities always are considered notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech National Capital Region

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

Promo failing WP:GNG. WP:TNT. Note creator has copyvios in other VT articles, unknown if this has one but tagging as such for checking. Widefox; talk 10:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This important article should not be deleted. Thousands of students attend courses within the Virginia Tech National Capital Region. Recommend edits updating the article as needed.Huskers110110 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Seems a legitimate campus of Virginia Tech. The actual article is a copyvio and spammy nightmare, but that can be fixed via normal editing and cleanup. --Jayron 32 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's several of these articles based solely on primary sources, cleanup would remove the WP:BLUDGEON of sources but a stub with primaries still fails GNG. Draft seems preferable, especially considering user has created 10 articles, and is a 90% SPA. Widefox; talk 12:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing to a stub and moving to a draft space is also a good idea. --Jayron 32 13:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Currently a load of promotional bullshit. It doesn't even say what it is about: is its subject a university? It should be removed from article space until it starts to resemble an encyclopedia article. Maproom (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling too, and currently the 90% SPA promo account is not claiming a COI, so I'm resisting calling it what it appears to be. Underneath the promo, there may be a notable topic, and Draft would separate wheat from chaff. Widefox; talk 12:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Junaid Ishtiaq Ali

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

The subject does not appear to be notable. The only references are FaceBook and a Google search for the subject's name - which does not find anything notable. I can't see coverage in the usual sources. Note that the username of the editor who wrote it is the same as the subject's name, who has never worked on any other articles, and this article refers several time to terms such as "striving my best" which lead me to suspect this is an autobiographical article.Gronk Oz (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - more references have been added but these seem to refer to someone else (maybe a relative of the subject?) No evidence of notability of subject Neiltonks (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an autobiography of a nonnotable person. The author does not seem to be fluent enough in English to make clear what the claim to notability is. He does not appear to have served in a legislature, which would greatly aid the claim of notability. Edison (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Virginia Tech. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Public Administration and Policy

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

Advert pretending to be an article. not-quite WP:SPA writing/creating promo only articles on VT - may have copyvio corrupted a weak article fundamentally we have a topic that should be notable hidden behind an an advert. Support moving to draft as this weakly sourced article is since 2007 or before. Widefox; talk 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This important article has been on Wikipedia since 2006. Recommend edits updating the article as needed.Huskers110110 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's been recognised as lacking sources since 2007. Widefox; talk 18:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Virginia Tech. sources quote people with relationship to this department, but no significant coverage of the department itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems equitable. Widefox; talk 18:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' as for most other such centers. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - along with any other related entities with articles that have no legitimate sourcing and read as advertisements. Czoal (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Pathan

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

Another article related to Teen Kaminay. I just can't find anything to show that she's particularly noteworthy at this point in time. A search using Google and the WP:INDIA search engine brings up nothing to show that she's noteworthy at this point in time.

On a side note, all of these articles have to do with the Mumbai Film Academy, who created the film. This looks like it's turning into a bit of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN here, although this one was made by another editor. I'm starting to suspect that this might also be a way to try to promote the company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 09:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Not significant for encyclopedic on WikipediaJosu4u (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging Onel5969 who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brajesh Pandey

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

I came across this via the article for Teen Kaminay. I just cannot see where this person is notable enough for an article. The article claims that he's worked with notable persons, but I don't see where any of this has translated into coverage for Pandey himself. I searched using the WP:INDIA search engine and couldn't find anything to show that he's particularly noteworthy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable director, Also IMHO the article is better off rewritten!, Anyway fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 09:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply see no better signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Kaminay

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

I came across this via the article for its director, which I speedied. A search for coverage via Google and the WP:INDIA search engine brings up nothing that would help establish that this unreleased film is notable enough for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this looks like it was one of a handful of articles created that relate to this film and Mumbai Film Academy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Directoratul/Teen_Kaminay - The only thing I'm finding for this film is the Facebook page, It seems if I search "Kaminay" then I get another film entirely, I'd imagine they'll be a few more sources in 2016 when the film's released. –Davey2010^Talk 09:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer AfC, to be honest - I wouldn't be comfortable with this being moved back without someone looking over the article first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's just dawned on me - If the images and poster are copyvios who's to say the text wasn't nicked off somewhere?, Meh tbh I think it's best It gets deleted and perhaps rewritten, –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: "Three Rascals (2016)" "Anil Chorasiya" "Narendra Tiwari" "Kartik Gaur" "Sahil Garg"

Delete per being TOO SOON. When released and if getting coverage, the topic can always be re-presented to Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}`

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

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

The result was speedy delete. spam created by sockpuppet of blocked user Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Motivations

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

Unreferenced in reliable independent sources, notability not evident, fails WP:EVENT WWGB (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Vinogradova

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was removed last year for not meeting nsports or tennis project guidelines. Nothing has changed and for reasons unknown to me the speedy delete was removed. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polina Vinogradova Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, lower-level professional tennis player. Does not satisfy the the criteria of the specific notability guideline for tennis players per WP:NTENNIS, nor the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article shows no compliance with WP:NTENNIS of GNG notability guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Choudhary

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this, this and this. Notifying authors Kaushikvijay21 and Ullhas.kolhe and interested subject users Yash!, SpacemanSpiff, Human3015, AusLondonder, MichaelQSchmidt, Onel5969 and possibly DMacks (moved the article) and DGG who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts per WP:INDAFD: "Manish Choudhary"

Keep as notable per meeting WP:ENT. While yes, it needs better sourcing, such ARE available... and in their being available and the article thus improvable, its needing work is no cause for deletion. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR. Has acted in multiple notable films with few of his roles being one of the significant ones. Also, Google results show that he has received good enough mention in film reviews and in some interviews. Ya sh! 11:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Yash!. Has had significant roles in at least 4 films (perhaps more, I stopped there): Uvaa, Bombay Velvet, Maazii, and Jannat 2. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the ping. Agree with editors above that Choudhary is notable according to guidelines. Also meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yash A Patnaik

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this, this and this but none of it is convincingly better. Pinging past users Kolbasz and Vanjagenije, subject users Onel5969, Human3015, SpacemanSpiff, AusLondonder, Yash! (why not? I also have to say this is the first time I've encountered a "Yash" article at AfD ), MichaelQSchmidt, Rms125a@hotmail.com and also DGG who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youi found sources suiable for WP:V. Why not choose add them rather than delete?? WP:NOTCLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts per WP:INDAFD: "Yash A Patnaik" "Yash Patnaik"

Keep per meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:BASIC. Needs better sourcing yes, but since such are available and the article improvable, we have no valid reason to delete. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SwisterTwister, unlike me, this Yash seems notable. I have added the source for the awards that his film won in 2010. Having produced this many popular shows and Google showing okayish results, this passes WP:GNG. Ya sh! 10:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Yash, seems notable film producer. Produced multiple shows, that too popular.--Human3015^TALK 12:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with others above. Enough sourcing found to meet WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up the World

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

Questionably notable and improvable especially given its current state (and Ian Kiernan and Kim McKay articles are also in need of improvement) and the best my searches found was this, this, this and this and there may be more sources but this all is simply not convincing me. This has exited since April 2007 when the author with the group's name started and it seems to have gotten some other connected changes since then but never anything meaningfully convincing and this article may have even been forgotten given its age and history. Pinging past users Kinu and Mean as custard, environmentalist Velella and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advert for unnotable entity. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure promotionalism, and nnot notable enough to be worth a rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 10:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dealema

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

Certainly speedy and PROD material but considering it claims to be one of Portugal's oldest hip hop groups and I found a few links here and here, I thought AfD may be better and this article has hardly changed since starting in January 2010. Pinging music users Michig and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The sources on the Portuguese site are weak, but I did find [34] [35] [36] which would put it just over the top for GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decent Portuguese coverage on GNews plus coverage in the book Hip-Hop in Europe: Cultural Identities and Transnational Flows ([37]). They appear to be a pretty big deal in their home country. --Michig (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A really weird history to this article (involving the subject herself blanking most any attempts to add more content to this article) but consensus indicates deletion at this moment in time. — foxj 01:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Massar

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

Easily speedy and PROD material (which I contemplatively considered) but as IMDb lists as Leo Award (not that it's much, especially saving the article) and the best my searches found was this, this and this. It's also worth noting the author's name was "mayamassar" and it continued changing this article even including blanking the page multiple times (an attempt at deleting the article?) until a MayaAYG started in August 2014 and lastly it's also worth noting the history shows most of the sources ever being unusable such as freewebs.com, IMDb, Amazon, etc.). Pinging subject users Rms125a@hotmail.com, MichaelQSchmidt and Onel5969 and also DGG who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability established through her sourcable career meeting WP:ENT.[38][39] The stub needs work, yes... but being stubby is no reason to delete a notable and sourcable topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability definitely not established. imdb.com is not usually considered a reliable source when establishing notability. And even if it were, this person's imdb bio clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. She's had a single significant role in a notable film (that of the Mom in the Uninvited). Her role in Cabin was a minor one. And searches show that she doesn't meet WP:GNG, all of the mentions were of the trivial kind, announcing her as part of the cast. She's a working actress, but not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly trivia credits,almost no major roles. Not notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above- Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unusual AFD, possibly haunted First, there's the fact that the article has been here since 2009, and an SPA named MayaMassar repeatedly removed large swaths of content for years, more recently an SPA named MayaAYG has been doing so. Then there's IMDB, not reliable, but that's an awfully long list of movies. I searched for her on the LATimes, a 2009 review panning a horror movie came up, "Well, there's the fact that Mom (Maya Massar) keeps popping up around the house in one horribly disfigured form or another, screaming "Murderer!" while pointing at Rachel." It reads as though we should know who Maya Massar is (a notorious ghost?) I'll take a swing at sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proquest Newspapers search turned up a profile in her hometown paper, Langley, British Columbia You are invited to Uninvited, Tamminga, Monique. Langley Times [Langley, B.C] 29 Jan 2009: "She plays a terrifying ghost in the DreamWorks film staring Emily Browning (best known for Lemony Snickets, ) and Arielle Kebbel (Gilmour Girls, John Tucker Must Die)" (The Uninvited (2009 film)). According to the Langley Times, Massar is: "Massar, an artist, poet and alternative healing facilitator" who plays a lot of ghosts and ghouls. Next article: "Leos a one-stop meet-mart: Producer sees long life for coroner drama": [Final Edition], Parry, Malcolm. The Vancouver Sun [Vancouver, B.C] 14 May 2002: B3. Husband David Massar turns out to be a movie producer who persuaded his wife to become an actress. Films got local awards. Some details of marriage. Next article: Actually, no. There are quite a lot of articles, also reviews with short mentions for probably all the movies at IMDB. Also stuff like an article: A school to get up early for: Families have been known to camp overnight to register their children at Langley Fine Arts School: [National Edition], Dube, Francine. National Post [Don Mills, Ont] 24 Apr 2001: A15. Where she talks about how great the school where her kids go is. Summing up She is sort of notable for playing roles in horror films, newspapers interview her about the 4.5 hours she spends in make-up session to come out looking like something the cat dragged in. I don't do a lot of AFDs for minor film actors, so, asking those who do, is this enough? And what do we do about an AFD for an article that people have tried to source, only to have those SPAs keep wiping out whole sections?E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete is how I assessed this. Legacypac (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHIREC International Schools

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

i have not authorize to use this page SEO.CHIREC (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Super Intelligent Sound Processor

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

Non-notable product. This chip is used in several products, but itself isn't a notable component. Mikeblas (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Initially closed as no consensus, but reopened per a request on my talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply a non-notable component by itself Rainbow unicorn (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show the notability of this component. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shona Chhabra

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

Fails WP:GNG (concerns: non-independent sources and trivial mentions) Appable (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 07:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 07:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 07:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better signs of better improvement. Pinging users interested with this subject MichaelQSchmidt, Yash!, AusLondonder, SpacemanSpiff and Human3015. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt per WP:INDAFD: "Shona Chhabra" "Shona Chabra"

Weak Keep per slightly sneaking up on WP:GNG and thus WP:BASIC. My own WP:BEFORE (under different spellings of name) finds she is spoken of in Deccan Herald, Sify, Times of India, Bollywood Hungama, and International Business Times tells of her nomination for 'Best Debutant Female for her role in Savaal. It's weak but undeniable. Even if deleted, the article can be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider the Sify and Deccan Herald sources trivial mentions and not useful for establishing notability because they consist only of an image or are a trivial mention of the actor (one sentence at best) in a multi-paragraph summary of the movie. Appable (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR & GNG Josu4u (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lead role in Sawaal is not quite enough. Biwom (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE shows coverage for several films. not just the one... and the quantity of her films is irrelevant... for in her meeting WP:BASIC we need not delete simply because anyone feels in error that a subordinate SNG is failed. A closer can disregard weak arguments as this is not a simple count of votes. WP:BASIC over-rules WP:ENT, not the other way 'round. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to be clear and concise... Yes, you're right about the press coverage, and I was initially thinking of using some of your links to improve the article, but then it turned out to be mostly stuff I would not be confortable to write in a BLP. My "vote" is not based on NACTOR, it's based on HARM, for whatever that's worth. Regards, Biwom (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per MichaelQSchmidt. Ya sh! 11:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with User:MichaelQSchmidt. Somehow don't think a similar American actor would have received a deletion nom in the same circumstances (WP:GEOBIAS). AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop feud

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hip hop feud

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

A violation of WP:Verifiability and doesn't not match any sourced elements. 75.129.225.170 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 75.129.225.170 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 75.129.225.170 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose as I see nothing better. Pinging the only seemingly interested user Nightscream. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if WP:NOTE is satisfied I don't have any strong feelings about the article one way or the other. What's important is to ask: Do the secondary sources cited in the article not satisfy notability guidelines? If not, then how so? And if they do, then what's this "I suppose as I see nothing better" stuff? Nightscream (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article is nothing, but unsourced and dead links that do not exist. This should be deleted until references are complete. 75.129.225.170 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hard to see why combining the words Hip Hop to the word feud, deserves it's own article. Any differences between the individual artists can be handled on those artists pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individuals in this industry have engaged in feuds, that does not mean that the topic merits an article. To support an article we would need significant, independent sources (journalism and academic - yes, Virginia, there are university professors of hip hop music) discussing hip feuds as a specific and special phenomenon, with defined characteristics and asserted implications. In other words, hip hop feuds happen, but I haven't found evidence that thy are a thing. Also, the Category:Hip hop feuds appears to be useful, but an article appears unwarranted at present.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am 16 i can rape

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

This is a non-notable book. The article's citations are almost entirely Wordpress blogs, and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Another problem is that I've already located and removed several copyright violations. There may be more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 05:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Novels-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 05:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that what the book's author is trying to do is very noble, but I just can't see where this book has gained any coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. A look using WP:INDIA's search engine didn't bring up anything that would show that the book is notable either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using the copyvio detector reveals that several copyright violations remain. Adam9007 (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The article was previously deleted (CSD) under the title I Am 16 I Can Rape: The War AGAINST Rape Culture--regentspark (comment) 03:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a fair claim to main that this is a non-notable book. At the least you guys should take a look at the quality of reviews and blog posts that this book has been getting in the last few months. Frankly speaking, India is currently plagued with the growing rape culture. In a matter of one year, India has seen 660% growth in the number of juvenile rape crimes. This number is staggering and is extremely socially relevant. The book which we are talking about here is a psychological thriller targeting to wake up the country in slumber by challenging the juvenile justice system in India. The sheer reviews that the book as got on Amazon and Goodreads should tell you guys about the quality of work.

My sincere request is to support the cause and not delete this page calling it "non-notable". That is a slap on the face of the writer as well as the women kind in India.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xdead10cc (talk • contribs) 07:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this has been copied from the AfD's talk page, where it was unlikely to be seen. Also, the person who posted this has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of the article's creator. I will agree with Tokyogirl79 that this seems noble. However, Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs or promotion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources cited are either obviously unreliable or don't mention the subject (they're about rape in India or sexual assault more generally). Not notable, even aside from the copyright violations. Hut 8.5 22:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A self published book with no notability in reliable sources and as pointed out, only few (1 or 2?) reliable sources listed there do actually mention the book. At the end it is nothing more than a promotional entry for what could be an interesting read but in the wrong place.--TMCk (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 16:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Beer & Beverage

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

Questionably notable as I simply found no better coverage and sourcing aside from this and there's also simply no obvious better improvement for this article from July 2007. Pinging Klemen Kocjancic and Trivialist. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 I sent you a note about this one a while ago but you must've missed it. I would appreciate some consensus here. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a former brewing firm, now a packaging firm, consisting largely of a product list for their former range. No evidence that the firm or its range was notable, nor that they are of encyclopaedic notability as a co-packager, as I can only find some passing financial coverage under their current name, Carolina Beverage Group. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up a few mentions on News and Books, but all trivial. Not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, and certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, while hoping that Aymatth2 might incorporate some of those new sources into the article.... Mojo Hand (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meraj Khalid Noor

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

I'm questioning if this is fully notable, improvable and acceptable as the best I found was this, this and this. Pinging Utcursch, Dr. Blofeld and author Viscious81. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a quick search and found
- "Paswan employs Osama clone". The Times of India. 2005-01-19.
- "Elections 2014: Bihar's Osama look-alike is now an untouchable". Mid Day. 2014-03-28.
- "Bihar's 'Osama bin Laden' to contest against Modi from Varanasi". Rediff.com. 2014-04-18.
- "Bihar's 'Osama' to contest against Modi in Varanasi". The Hindu. 2014-04-18.
- "Noor to contest against Modi - Laden lookalike in Varanasi poll ring". The Telegraph. 2014-04-19.
- "Osama Bin Laden lookalike to fight Narendra Modi in Varanasi". Deccan Chronicle. 2014-04-21.
- "Taking on Modi — independents with quirks". The Hindu. 2014-04-23.

These are all mainstream journals. Apart from the first story, they are all about the same event, but they are not clones and give enough information to be considered in-depth coverage. He seems quite humble: ""I am no more in demand... I have been used and dumped ... I am neither a good speaker nor a leader with any support base ... Nobody remembers my real name." Nevertheless, based on the coverage he is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Pinging nominator @SwisterTwister: to revisit the discussion, per sources presented above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the new sources found, the subject passes the general notability criteria.—UY Scuti ^Talk 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Hamilton (tenor)

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

Questionably notable? as the best I found was this and this and this hasn't improved much since starting in April 2007. Pinging Karljoos and author Chris the speller. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete as you see fit – I probably split it out of an article that had two David Hamiltons in it; I can't remember after 8 1/2 years. I won't push to keep the article. Chris the speller ^yack 04:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [40], - article needs work (will do a bit) but the singer is notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See also this broadcast on Radio New Zealand and this one on ABC Classic FM. Dulcie Holland also wrote 3 songs for tenor and string quartet for Hamilton, who is the dedicatee of the work [41]. Voceditenore (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. When searching for references please consider that according to this article in The Charlotte Observer their are three different tenors with this name; all with current substantial performing careers. It could be very easy to confuse these men. In fact it may be worth creating articles now on all three in order to just avoid potential future confusion.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The artist clearly meets wikipedia's notability standards.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 17:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Economic Prospects

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

No indication that the report itself is notable. Third-party sources cite it for some of the information contained in the report, but don't discuss the report itself in any detail. The article's content largely is based on the publisher itself. Huon (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose until better can found. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom makes an important point that is often missed in these discussions - it's not enough to be mentioned in numerous reliable sources - there needs to be extensive coverage of the subject itself. Being frequently cited is not enough, as there is no actual discussion of the subject. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sibley Fleming

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

I checked the sources and they don't support the claims of being a well-known author. Her LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/pub/sibley-fleming/8/723/a07) identifies her as the Editor-in-Chief for a media company that focuses on real estate. I don't think her bio meets WP:AUTHOR. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm not seeing much obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Celestine Sibley Sibley Fleming is a working journalist who has self-published children's books ans a memoir about her grandmother. Of the references on the page #2 leads to the staff section of a publication she writes for, and #3 may be similar, although I could not get the link to work. Writing for a series of business publications is just a job, no secondary sources seem to discuss the idea of her doing it with any notability.

That leaves the first source, which is to a sort of how-to-self-promote book that does, in fact, profile her and her skill at self-promotion, i.e. she paid to have pop-up art made up for children's books she writes. Her only significant book is Celestine Sibley: A Granddaughter's Reminiscence (2000), about her Grandmother, Celestine Sibley. But the book, which appears to have been self-published, seems ot have attracted no attention at all.

Since the grandmother was long-time columnist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, I searched that paper for mention of the granddaughter's book. I turned up this article [42]. Access is behind a paywall, but the google search excerpt says: " A compilation of her work edited by her granddaughter, namesake and fellow writer, Sibley Fleming." So, the article is not about Flemings's "Reminiscence" but, rather, about a different book, "The Celestine Sibley Sampler: Writings & Photographs With Tributes to the Beloved Author and Journalist." (1997) A collection of the Grandmother's writings co-authored with her Grandmother. Editing a collection of her grandmother's columns, is absolutely lovely thing for a grandchild to do. But it does not confer notability. Further searches on Proquest turn up social column announcements (scanning, they appear to be wedding and who-attended-which-party announcements in the Atlanta papers - the family appears to have been well placed in Atlanta society circles.) Her co-edited volume of her grandmother's writings did get some attention:
Sibley Sampler leaves reader wishing for more

Heitman, Danny. Advocate [Baton Rouge, La] 22 Mar 1998: 6-mag. - a write-up or book review in a Louisiana Daily.

Here's pre-pub. promo for the book in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, in full, "Buzz also chatted up Sibley's granddaughter, Celestine Sibley Fleming this week. Fleming told us her memoir, "Celestine Sibley: A Granddaughter's Reminiscence" (Hill Street Press, $19.95), will hit store shelves in March. In the book's introduction, Fleming writes: "This book is about the inheritance left me by my grandmother, not about diamond tiaras or strings of pearls, but instead a look at the richness of life, the miracle of relationships and the wisdom that comes from greeting every day with an open mind and sense of humor." Eldredge, Richard L. The Atlanta Constitution [Atlanta, Ga] 10 Feb 2000: F; 2.
Long article about the "Sampler" of grandmother's writings book in AJC, 'It doesn't seem right that Celestine's not around to announce springtime, especially a fine one like this.': [Home Edition]

Rheta Grimsley Johnson. The Atlanta Constitution [Atlanta, Ga] 13 Apr 2000: D; 1.

I also found 2 brief things about her children's book in the AJC, (an author appearance, a mention) 1 in the Barton Rouge Paper, and 1 brief reference ot a guidebook about Atlanta that she wrote.

Summing up, the grandmother's career was notable. Flemings' Celestine Sibley: A Granddaughter's Reminiscence, and the co-authored "The Celestine Sibley Sampler: Writings & Photographs With Tributes to the Beloved Author and Journalist." should be added to that page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changing to delete, after adding the 2 books to grandmother's page. Really nothiing left to merge. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above editors. Nothing to merge, nothing to show enough notability on their own to warrant their own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Furre

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

Mayor of a third-tier (population-wise) Norwegian town, but does not make the cut when looking at the politician guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the page should be deleted

Other former mayors and other politicians from Kristiansand (See Category:Kristiansand politicians) - including mayors and deputy mayors have articles on Wikipedia, so why delete the current managing politician for the city? Deleting would mean weakening the Wikipedia.User:Carsten R D (talk) 19:10 21. October 2015 (CET)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember notability is not inherited. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Harald Furre is a national wide known politician, and major of the 8th largest populated city in Norway. A google-search including Harald Furre and limited to the site for national broadcasting in Norway (NRK) shows a range of news hits, where Furre is the main object. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Monitoring Report (World Bank)

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

This article confuses notability of poverty with notability of the report on poverty. While the report's results are widely discussed, the report itself is not covered in any detail; in fact, not a single secondary source bothers to report its title. Huon (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing anything better. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, numerous in depth coverage over many years in major newspapers, magazines, books and so on. Not sure what you mean by "not a single secondary source bothers to report its title" - a quick google news search of "Global Monitoring Report" shows hundreds of results, including: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] etc etc, and in other sources, e.g.: [49]. Try searching without the (World Bank) part in quotations. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Markkanen

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

This article was PRODed for BLP with no sources. No evidence of notability. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person is a non-notable sportsman in a minor league. --MPorciusCato (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A simple Google search demonstrates that he fails general notability guidelines. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. The subject is a Finnish high school student and a seven-foot, five-star basketball recruit. WP:NHSPHSATH imposes a heightened notability standard for high school athletes. Here, however, the subject arguably passes even this heightened standard, having received significant coverage in major national media outlets, including ESPN.com here, ~~MSN here,~~ CBS Sports here, Sports Illustrated, and Fox Sports here. See also this piece from the Arizona Daily Star. He also has a well-developed biography on Finnish Wikipedia (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_Markkanen) with citations to numerous Finnish sources providing prolonged coverage of the subject. While articles on high school athletes are appropriately discouraged, this one appears to be an exception to the rule. Cbl62 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, please note that I'm pursuing this deletion on two claims: BLP no sources, and notability. Before discussing notability at any length, you should address the former issue, since it's a clear violation of BLP policy that results in deletion. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No longer a BLP issue. Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he meets GNG. Some surfaced by Cbl62, plus I just read this CBS Sports feature piece last week. Rikster2 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TorrentProject

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

Article about a non-notable bit torrent search engine. Fails WP:WEBCRIT for lack of available reliable sources independent of the subject. Most sources merely mention the subject. - Mr X 15:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Torrent Project being mentioned by multiple independent sources is enough to establish notability. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better but I'm willing to change if the consensus changes as well. SwisterTwister talk 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is Alexa rank 51,575 and is just one of many torrent sites. rayukk | talk 10:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's Alexa rank is 4,839 not 51,575 (I updated the page with new information and sources), also the search engine offering free api and mentioned by multiple independent sources.BooBooSweet (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:WEBCRIT.—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't have enough significant independent coverage to show notability. As has been pointed out, fails WP:WEBCRIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winds (band)

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

Questionably notable? and improvable article as I found no better coverage and even the band members' articles all are equally questionable except for Jan Axel von Blomberg which at least has some sources (followed somewhat closely by Andy Winter) and the best I found was this. The albums may also be questionable as they all have Allmusic reviews and The Imaginary Direction of Time actually has two but overall I would like some insight with this. Pinging Wizardman, IllaZilla and Ketiltrout and also notifying unactive authors Karpsmom and KAtremer. Considering the Japanese band W-inds seems notable, this may also be redirected to that after deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm hoping for a better consensus, I'm notifying music users Michig and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weal Keep - The articles for two of the band's members should be deleted. The other two should be edited for length. I'm sure that Michig, and others, would argue that because the members are individually notable that any band two or more of them are in is notable. I don't think that's the case here. However, three of the band's four albums have staff reviews on AllMusic. They should all be reviewed and strengthened. The weight of those reviews leads me to believe they're notable, and the article should be improved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band. Just enough coverage exists including in Jeff Wagner's book Mean Deviation. The articles on the band members are not nominated so pointless commenting on them. --Michig (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 17:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PsyTech

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

No evidence of notability. Deprodded without comment by original editor who also removed all maintenance tags and added a single unsourced statement. No evidence from ghits or google books search of the term being used other than as company name etc. PamD 07:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't see the term being used commonly. Until it is widely used, delete. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarah-Jane (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Richter

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

I found some coverage here, here, here, here and here but I'm not sure if this can be improved enough thus taking to AfD for comments. Pinging Skyerise, J04n and JNW. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - I'm on the border on this one. The cites on News appeared promising, but none were really in-depth. And the fact that there weren't more mentions in other publications didn't rise to the level of notability required. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO point #1: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6] ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12]. Pinging @SwisterTwister and Onel5969: to revisit this discussion per these sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Master Anthology of Fingerstyle Guitar Solos. p. 96.
^ "Fractal Reflections, Brad Richter. Harmon Records". Arizona Daily Star.
^ "'String Theory': quantum leap of cello, guitar". Arizona Daily Star.
^ "The Guitar Hour: Brad Richter". Spokane Public Radio. – 49 minute radio interview (page includes link to listen to interview)
^ "An Interview with Brad Richter". Guitarra Magazine.
^ "Guitarist's works alluring, majestic". Deseret News. (subscription required)
^ "Classical guitarist plays for students; public performance slated for Friday". Kingman Daily Miner. – At first glance, this seems like a routine announcement, but be sure to scroll over to the rest of the article on page two. The article also covers aspects of the subject's music and his interaction with students
^ "Musician Appointed to Teach Guitar". The Herald. (subscription required)
^ "Guitarist seeks 'conversation'". Deseret News. (subscription required)
^ "Richter's 'Whisper' has innovation, virtuosity". Deseret News. (subscription required)
^ "Guitarist Richter is home for CD release". Arizona Daily Star.
^ "Lauded guitarist Richter to perform". Arizona Daily Star (subscription required). – Another article that appears routine at first glance, but notice how it includes content about the subject himself

Keep - per the new sources found, passes WP:MUSICBIO. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have done some editing including adding references, and there's sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources available to pass WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the work of Northamerica1000 and Sam Sailor. Nicely done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Human Chain for Madhesh Movement

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating as the last discussion failed to reach a consensus. The rationale is the same as before; apparently, the human chain was actually just one part of a larger political movement, so if that movement had its own article, I would not be opposing this being merged there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please! Review this article once before deleting. Now, enough informations added related to this article. Regards, Tulsi Bhagat 18:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsi Bhagat (talk • contribs)
Information and citations added to the article now. Notable to place in wiki--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2015 Madhesi protests and expand, as I've suggested before. The human chain itself is barely notable, but the overall protests are definitely notable. utcursch | talk 13:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the article is extended so far. Keeping this article is worth side--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 16:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – per the sources I was able to find, very weakly/barely meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [50], [51] (short article), [52] (short article), [53], (short article, translated version). I wonder if more coverage is available in news sources from this region. Perhaps this would be better merged into a potential 2015 Madhesi protests article, if this is ever created. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More reliable source added to the article, Please review now--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 10:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - WP:GEOBIAS. If a protest of this scale occurred in the United States (given that a woman who refuses to marry same-sex couples gets her own controversy article AND BLP), a deletion nom would be treated as satire. Very sad editors are so determined to remove such notable events from Wikipedia and reduce coverage of the non-English speaking world rather than working to assist. Received fair coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - fair enough article AFAICT--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 13:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Biblioworm 17:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu national basketball team

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

Fails WP:V – no evidence in reliable sources (that I can find) that Tuvalu has ever had a national basketball team. The single source listed is The Complete Guide to National Symbols and Emblems, a rather dubious reference work that seems to have relied on Wikipedia as a source. Basketball in Tuvalu, which is actually sourced, makes no reference to a national team, and, based on the links to the page, Tuvalu has never participated in any FIBA or non-FIBA tournaments. Edit: going to add more article from the same creator to this AfD, for the same reasons. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein national basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

how is the source dubious? what makes you think that it relied on Wikipedia as a source? Please clarify further. Stephreef (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both no evidence of meeting wp:v. Only book mention is a Wikipedia mirror from a self-published source. 2601:586:C003:1700:982C:15B7:571B:BEED (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete both - Couldn't verify the existence of both the teams. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Craissati

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

I'm not sure if this can be better improved as the best I found was this and there's not much to suggest a better article here not to mention since starting in April 2007 and being edited by apparently the subject himself. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of hits on the web search Swister posted above, but all basically trivial mentions about his position at Virgin. Searches on News, etc. turned up no in-depth articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OSSICS

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

Questionably notable and improvable as it even seems it may not exist anymore because the website is now in Chinese and says "Brian Gardner" and the best links I found was this and this and this simply hasn't changed much since starting in November 2008. Pinging tagger Ihcoyc and author Krishnachandranvn. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yash!, Onel5969 and Human3015, would you comment as I'm hoping for a better consensus? SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 17:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvet Britto

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

I simply see nothing to suggest better notability and improvement with my best search results this, this, this and here. Pinging past users Dialectric and MER-C. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I was on the fence about this one. She gets a bunch of hits, but all of the trivial nature, and gets quoted a lot, but that is because she is a PR spokesman. This might pass WP:BASIC, but it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Taking into account the promotional aspect of the article pushed me into the delete category. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - per Onel5969 —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 17:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe L. Reed

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

It seems he's mentioned considerably such as this, this, this, this and this but I'm not sure if he's fully notable and this can be better improved. Pinging the only still active users Graeme Bartlett and TexasAndroid. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the current article is pretty void of inline citations, and the hits I'm seeing on the internet seem to only deal with the one event regarding the Acadome. And the vast majority of those are simple passing mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'd say borderline notability. He was notable for one event, after which there are passing mentions. Considering the state of the article, delete. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Lakhewala

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

A singer who seems to fall under too soon-also comes across as a advertisement. Wgolf (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Not enough significant coverage to make it pass WP:BIO.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 17:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devyn De Loera

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate De Loera Wgolf (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Biblioworm 17:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate De Loera

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

A songwriter with questionable notability. Same with her sister Devyn De Loera, which is also going to get a AFD. Wgolf (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Lopez

AfDs for this article:

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

fails GNG; previous nomination withdrawn after people promised better sourcing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable and the sourcing seems sufficient - I see nothing in the prior nomination that "promised better sourcing". Jooojay (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for same reasons as explained in Joojay's comment.Rab V (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is she "clearly notable"? Where is the significant, in-depth coverage of her? Because what she does is admirable doesn't mean she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Please provide some links to show she meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see nothing better. Pinging Jooojay and Bearcat. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you looking for that is better? The cited sources include The NY Times, NY Post, Huffington Post and etc... Nothing was promised to change, this seems like an unnecessary nomination. Jooojay (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough reliable sources to indicate the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO, including significant mentions in NY Times, NY Daily News and NY Post. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage to withhold notability. Fails WP:BIO.—UY Scuti ^Talk 11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Remember Someone Today on 104.7 Easy Rock General Santos

List of Remember Someone Today on 104.7 Easy Rock General Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of Classic Hits/Adult Complementary on 97.9 Home Radio: The Heart of Classic Jam (Aliw Broadcasting Corporation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

PROD declined without comment (and a {{Pp-sock}} page protection template was strangely added, as if that means anything). This is pure trivia, an indiscriminate list of songs apparently played by a radio station. No indication it has any significance. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating to this discussion List of Classic Hits/Adult Complementary on 97.9 Home Radio: The Heart of Classic Jam (Aliw Broadcasting Corporation). --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Per nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as promotional material, promoting the songs they play; they have also created List of Easy Listening/Adult Contemporary on 96.7 Infinite Radio General Santos. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: the name is the Sockmaster of the first article in the province of Misamis Occidental is TV5Ozamiz. the username has creating the Kean Rabuyo person of Media and Music are notable. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The City of God (2016 film)

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

Film I'm unable to find anything for-the link just says coming soon. Looking for the film all I can find is the 2002 film of the same name. Wgolf (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFF - no reliable source to confirm it actually has commenced principal photography. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per being (at kindest) TOO SOON. if/when released and gaining coverage, this topic can always be returned. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reva Forth

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered and all those I could find by Googling all trace back to websites owned by the author of this product. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion for a personal project of the article's creator, and in eight years no independent references or indications of notability have been added. Rwessel (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Ruud 22:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find sources establishing notability. APerson (talk!) 17:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Fails notability criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree, presumably you meant a policy other than WP:BIO? Perhaps WP:NSOFT? Rwessel (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After renaming for clarity, consensus appears to be that it passes GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aminpur Bangladesh

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

this page has no reference and this page is so short, this page only one line info. Night Khalifa (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least until a better article (if that can happen) can be made as searches find the usual links confirming its existence but not its better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fork/Rename. This article discusses two different entities, according to WP:BDPLACE, who would reside in Aminpur, Pabna or Aminpur, Bera, Pabna (if there are more than one Aminpur in Pabna District) and Aminpur PO, Pabna (probably not notable). See also: [54] (in Bengali). Note that, the town/village passes WP:GEOLAND. --nafSadh did say 19:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND: we keep stubs on recognised populated places; sources exist [55] (look betweenPuran Bharenga and Ruppur), [56], [57], [58], [59] to substantiate the existence of a place and a police station bearing this name in Pabna district and these should be added: Noyster (talk), 10:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only see an "Aminpur Puran bazar" on the map you provided. Googling that name shows that it's a bazar. I'm not sure these links confirm it's a legally recognized city, per GEOLAND. If it's not a legally recognized place (and I can't tell if it is) I think it would need to meet the GNG, and I don't believe it does. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FuriouslySerene: In addition to references mentioned by nafSadh and Noyster, I've added a citation to the 2011 census. This Google map may also be of assistance. Aminpur Puran [old] Bazar is the town's old market, near the central mosque. Worldbruce (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user has been blocked [60]: Noyster (talk), 09:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by long-standing consensus that WP:GEOLAND means populated, legally recognized places should be kept. Worldbruce (talk)
Keep and move to Aminpur, Bangladesh - Being a legally recognized place, passes WP:GEOLAND—UY Scuti ^Talk 09:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per WP:GEOLAND; presumed notable as per being a populated, legally recognized place, as per the Government of Bangladesh ([61]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article has been moved/renamed to Aminpur, Bangladesh, to correct punctuation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Diablo (series)#Novelizations. MBisanz ^talk 12:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo: The Sin War

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diablo (series)#Novelizations. I don't see coverage in reliable sources, but it's a part of a famous franchise. Fans are quite likely to search for it. If someone wanted to do a very limited merge, they could do that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions – Added Video games delsort, per high relevance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's worth engaging all other options before coming to AfD—as above, this page would be a fine merger into its parent article section. (2) This said, I can only find a few (vetted) sources (and only for Birthright): [62][63][64] (not as sure on the reliability of the last one). In any event, I recommend a redirect per the above, where it can always grow summary style. czar 15:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found the same handful of sources as Czar--I would support what would probably be a one-paragraph merge into Diablo (series)#Novelizations summarizing the three works. --Izno (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MBisanz, I think we have a clear consensus to redirect czar 02:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Overall consensus is for deletion, as per the subject not meeting WP:NCYCLING nor WP:GNG, although the latter was only stated by two participants herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torkil Veyhe

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

Although created in good faith, this cyclist does not meet WP:NCYCLING. Winning the Island Games is not considered top international level and has been discussed here. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#international_games LibStar (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find him notable. He has won the Faroese Championship and the Kring Føroyar several time, and has won the Island Games. EileenSanda (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the page you refer to [65] says that: Cyclists are presumed notable if they ... Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); I would say that the Island Games are an international multi-sport event, even if all of the islands are not countries. Some of the islands or island groups who have participated are are countries (i.e. Iceland), some even independent countries. The participants come from Europe, North America, South America, Saint Helena is in the South Atlantic Ocean. Several of the islands are British overseas territory or British crown dependency, there are Swedish counties, Spanish island, Province of Canada, Greek island, Estonian island, Scottish council area, council area of Wales and autonomous countries of the Kingdom of Denmark. EileenSanda (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looks far from a high level competition , an American state cycling event would be of a higher quality especially the big states of California or Texas. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning at the Island Games doesn't qualify him under WP:NCYCLING according to the link provided by LibStar. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like he pretty clearly fails WP:NCYCLING and doesn't meet WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:CYCLING, could find some little coverage but not enough to pass the general notability criteria. And, four relists? Seriously? —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors are reminded of WP:NTEMP and WP:OFFLINE. Content issues such as the inclusion of lists of historical members and NPOV can be dealt with on the talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. National Video Game Team

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

Despite the name, no recognized official status. Very little non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to establish any sort of notability; had a brief run of limited attention in the 80s, and nearly none since. Most (if not all) of the links in the timeline to twingalaxies.com are broken. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The U.S. National Video game team was registered for Trademark and rebooted 8-7-2015 Since the announcement of the reboot, we've been working on compiling historical articles, with the intent to add them to this page. Since our first small edits, this page, has been near constantly edited and put up for deletion. It makes absolutely no sense to me that a page that has been here for as long as this page has existed, has been put up for deletion over and over again. Myself an original member of the team in 1983 Tim McVey, along with Patrick Scott Patterson are attempting to preserve the history of the first original video game team in the country. We have the documents, we can't put them up yet. We do not wish to violate copyright in doing so. We are working on securing permission and following procedures to update the page in the correct manner. This process takes time. We would like for the page to NOT be deleted in the mean time. The original team was founded with several specific goals. We wanted to raise money for charity was one of them. Our bus tour in 1983 was to raise money for Cystic Fibrosis. The other purpose of the team in 1983 was to challenge other countries around the world, to create a national team to represent their country, and to engage in friendly completion among the different nations National teams. This part never came to fruition. We are attempting to reboot the team, the name, preserve the legacy of the original members and historic events, and modernize for todays world and pursue similar goals as the original team had planned. With all the negativity online, GamerGate etc related to video games...we will be striving for the best in gaming. Positive team members. Members who embody the vision of promoting gaming in a positive manner. This does not happen overnight. Give us a chance. Help us make this page correctly. We are willing to take the time, to read and research, and make this page an addition to Wikipedia. We definitely want to get it removed from stub status. But right now, we can't seem to go more than 5 minutes without somebody editing out content, or putting the page up for deletion. Sprinter461 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Sprinter461 (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read our policy on notability. This issue isn't whether or not something exists, but rather if it meets the criteria outlined in that policy. Primary sources (e.g., press releases) do not count toward notability; see WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how can I fix it, if you CONSTANTLY change it? While I am in the middle of editing it? Sprinter461 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Also why was the list of past team members acceptable from 2008 until we started trying to fix the page recently? I do not understand. Sprinter461 (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A long list of non-notable names (the only thing I've deleted from it) does not in anyway "fix" the article. You may also want to read our policy on article ownership (short version: there is no article ownership). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page existed with what you call "non notable names" for years without it ever being considered an "issue". Your edits have actually made the page less factually correct, too, as your arbitrarily chosen "notable members" were made up of mostly former members, but your wording made it appear they were current. I am not a Civil War expert, which is why I don't edit Civil War pages. Not only do I feel a page that existed here for the better part of a decade should remain in place, but I do not feel edits should be made so freely by a person with limited or no knowledge on the subject as has been happening SuperPacMan (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sprinter461 I will say that Wikipedia's list inclusion policy (mentioned in WP:Prose), which requires that entities in a list already have pages, is byzantine and nearly paradoxical in a lot of situations. But it does prevent long lists of trivia from being included and tends to bring about better articles. The best way to address this is ideally on the article's talk page. The discussion of deletion is primarily focused on the topic of the article, not how it was written or whether anyone liked it.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userify I think this article has the potential to meet guidelines for inclusion, but the subject of the article literally re-launched this month. It will be some time before notability is going to be established in a way that's going to qualify. For many of the reasons outlines WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not, this article isn't yet ripe for inclusion. Once the team has been written about in some credible non-PR contexts, it should be reconsidered.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The recent attempts to improve this page are indicative of and similar to activities that are banned. In this case, the specific inclusion of press releases and links to commercial blogs do not add value to the topic but serve only to affect the author's interests and not of the global knowledge community. This page is not meant to be personal property where one can promote a sole proprietorship or corporation. This page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.183.9 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@66.96.183.9: I'm not sure attempts to improve a page can ever really be banned, since we almost always assume good faith on an editor's part (WP:AGF). While I agree that these links do not yet qualify the article properly, I'm not prepared to come down any more harshly than to suggest the editor userify the page and continue work.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page existed for YEARS as it was. Nobody ever questioned it's worthiness or the notability of anyone listed on it before. All I did was add a snippet of recent news to make sure that the page read correctly. We then had a vandal... and since the vandal we have been nailed with a long line of admins that do not seem to realize this. The updates were to add to the knowledge base of the page and nothing more. For that matter the articles (not blogs) written about the history of it were also done in the interest of ensuring that very valid history was told, and were written well before the trademark was filed. In fact, the whole point of getting the trademark was to save the rich history of this Team. If you don't think a company like Coca Cola adds info to their page you aren't being honest. Help me understand how this page can exist as a stub for YEARS without it ever being a problem, only to be put up for deletion by an admin that seems to have little knowledge of the subject after a few minor edits and a vandal comes by? Our only intent with this team is to save and preserve the first-ever eSports team and you want to toss it out after it's been on here for YEARS? SuperPacMan (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, a simple look at the overall history of the page puts perspective on this. It was originally put into Wikipedia in June 2006 by the original founder, who did nothing but link to information he'd posted himself. The page then existed almost exactly as he posted it for over NINE YEARS without any admins saying it wasn't noteworthy or that anyone in it wasn't notable. Only after a minor edit to add in new information and an attack by a vandal it fended off this page is suddenly a problem? You can understand why I might be puzzled by that or might take this a little bit personal. NINE YEARS this article was on here - placed by the original founder and, it appears, edited over time by former members - and nobody takes issue until MORE info is actually added. Not a new page... a page that has been here since June 2006 and put up by the original founder. Please explain how things are only an issue now? SuperPacMan (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To get immediately to the point, there are millions of pages. This page -- much like the team you reference -- languished in obscurity for years. The recent back and forth edits brought it to my attention. If it is a historical team, why not merge the information with the Twin Galaxies own page? If this is a new organization, then you are guilty of self promoting your own business which is more then enough grounds for deletion. This is the world's information. This is not your personal website. You have asked a good question about why the page was unmolested for years. The answer is that the page was simply too minor for anyone to notice. The only outside information I could find about this team was this very article. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to record every minor detail of the business world but to make freely available the world's knowledge. Minutiae and trivia do not qualify for their own pages.

Perhaps because the Team was only intertwined with Twin Galaxies for a few years of it's history? After that, it ran on it's own and did a great deal on it's own. Combining the USNVGT's information with an organization that it was only involved with for a fraction of it's history would not be right and fair to preserving that history. From 1986 forward, the USNVGT was not involved in any way with Twin Galaxies and accomplished a great deal during that time, arguably more than it did with it. Why not just merge the page for the United States of America in with the Wiki page for England? Same logic. As far as finding "outside information" from outside this article, a Google search for U.S. National Video Game Team on Google provides me a great deal of information not linked in this article. Not sure why or how your results would vary.SuperPacMan (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article also violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, the author of recent edits and main supporter of this article is supporting it with PR he has written himself, as a means of self promotion, which is not in any way a reliable source as anyone can construct those "PR Releases" for any purpose. The author in question also does not seem to comprehend the idea of relevance and neutrality of subject as well as Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content, the wiki is not meant to be used in the way this author intends and for all the reasons mentioned above, the article should be deleted as it is not relevant nor noteworthy on it's own at this time and has been covered in a more significant article Twin_Galaxies. 216.223.64.50 (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you wish to kill the page for reasons that existed with it from day one when the original founder set it up and posted things he wrote himself? Only one thing, by the way, is a PR release. In fact, the "more significant article' you site was created by the owner of that company at the time and edited by people involved with that company ever since. Unreal. SuperPacMan (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article having existed previously in obscurity without being deleted despite being largely in contrast with the standards of the wiki does not exempt it from having those rules and regulations applied now. Wikipedia is a constantly evolving construct and while the article may have been valid under rule sets previously, it violates numerous rules currently as pointed out above. Be careful not to form tunnel vision around topics which are irrelevant (to wit: who created the page, who edited it and when) and instead review some of the conflicts as they have been pointed out in this discussion and it may add clarity as to why there is an issue with this article. 216.223.64.50 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of making demands to know WHY the rules apply it would be more constructive if you edited the page to shed light on why the notability of the organization. Shedding light does not include adding links to websites and blogs that you are responsible for. Please use real world examples of how this team was important in the past as well as today. Being combative and/or argumentative will not win your case. Please also explain why this allegedly historical team merits its own page. Providing links to neutral sources will greately help your case. We are all trying to increase the quality of the pages here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.183.9 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see sourcing/significant coverage enough to meet the WP:GNG. I can reconsider if more/better sources are provided, but right now I'm not seeing is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot add anything to the article. Every time we touch it to add to it, it's immediately reverted and the changes are removed. Go ahead and delete it. The historical list of team members is already gone. It's pointless in it's current state. One more piece of video game history gone. You have a person on here editing that has a personal agenda. RJFJR he's bragging on Facebook about getting the page deleted. Rudy J Ferretti. Sprinter461 (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to respond when you speak in such generalities. I don't know who RJFJR is, I don't see a name like that mentioned anywhere here or the article's edit history. I don't know who this is, but we can't really control what happens off-Wikipedia, and it doesn't really factor into these discussions unless someone was inappropriately trying to recruit people to side with him in these discussions.
I'm also not sure what changes you're trying to make that keep getting removed. Is it the complete list of members? If so, it's probably right to be removed - empty lists with nothing other than names, and no real context/information on them in the way of descriptions or WP:WIKILINKs, are usually removed from lists in Wikipedia. If you're referring to something else, then you'll have to tell me specifically.
If you're unhappy that your changes keep on getting undone before you're finished, you can always copy the content to a WP:SANDBOX and then make the changes you want to make, and link us to it here or the talk page and have people discuss whether or not your proposed changes are appropriate. It's basically a little "rough draft" type area. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion and the page history seem to suggest some sort of edit war between advocates for the page and an anonymous user determined to remove changes they're making. Before any further action is taken, I suggest someone with the appropriate authority sort out the edit war.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has edited the article in 5 days, so I don't really think there's anything to sort out there... Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the matter is whether or not the subject of the matter is noteworthy. The advocates of the page claim to be co-owners of the team. They claim to be neutral and only interested in preserving history. Their proof of notability is a series of links to paid blogs (of which they themselves are the authors), essentially turning this page into click-bait. Their attempt at preserving history is a thinly veiled attempt at promoting their own business interests. At least that is the distinct impression given.66.96.183.9 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sergecross73. Coverage in reliable sources is minimal and insignificant. Most of the "keep" arguments are not policy-based and amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITEXISTS. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, because many false arguments are being used here:
- As stated by the nominator: "had a brief run of limited attention in the 80s, and nearly none since" -> the fact that there has been no recent attention is not ground for deletion, of course we also cover historal topics.
- As seen in older versions of the article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._National_Video_Game_Team&oldid=73823534), this was covered by a significant number of reliable sources, e.g.:
  - CashBox Magazine, August 27, 1983
  - Chicago Suburban Tribune, August 24, 1983
  - RePlay Magazine, February 1, 1984
  - PlayMeter Magazine, March 1, 1984
  - Torrance Daily Breeze, Torrance, CA, July 12, 1987
- All of that information was removed at some point only because the links were no longer active. That is not an acceptable way of editing Wikipedia. We do not rely on whether information is available online at this moment, if there was sufficient coverage back then, this certainly should be sufficient ground to include the topic
- Yes, there seems to be edit warring over the article, and perhaps some of those involved have a COI. But, the article has existed since 2006 and has been edited by many editors since that time, most of which will not have had a COI. Edit warring is not grounds for deletion.

--Reinoutr (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The team received a fair bit of coverage when it was active in the 80s, such as in Life magazine, but much of that content is not freely available on the web. I don't know about the Conflict of Interest editing going on here, but I'm sure it can be cleaned up in the mean time.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would think if the topic was notable in the 70s there would at least be some mentions in newspapers from that time. But searches on Google Newspaper turn up only two mentions, both of them clearly trivial. I see it has been pointed out there were mentions in magazines from the 70s but is anyone in a position to say they are substantial coverage right now? Considering the number of voters above who clearly feel very strongly towards keeping the article, and the fact that almost no links or sources are being provided, I'm inclined to conclude that there simply is only trivial coverage. If more sources can be uncovered, the article can be recreated. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. From a pure headcount point of view, there's a pretty strong consensus that this should not exist as a standalone article. Several of those arguing to keep are either IP's with no editing history, or editors who have been around a while, but have been focused narrowly and exclusively on the topic of oldest people. But, more than all that, none of the people arguing to keep have made any strong policy-based arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Harris

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

I think the consensus has been clear that someone who was the oldest person in the state of Illinois and third-oldest male is not sufficiently notable absent other WP:GNG information. Here, Harris is claimed to have been the oldest person in the state of Illinois (although this article puts him at oldest in US). Of the three sources, two are based on him getting his hometown key to the city and having his own day which is borderline significant while the third article is more like a WP:ROUTINE obituary. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently non-notable, and even if notable, WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She clearly has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. The oldest person in Illinois history will always be the oldest person in Illinois. 166.170.47.206 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.47.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(A) "He" and (B) I don't want even to get why that interpretation of the notability standards is comical. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was oldest verified man in the United States and one of oldest man in the world. as past of AfD proves, this article is meet Notability. I don't know why you want to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and redirect I've read all four "sources" carefully. There was some material in the article that appeared in none of the sources, including an assertion that he was "seemingly a lifelong Democrat" because he had voted for JFK and Barack Obama. There's nothing encyclopedic in this article. The subject fails to qualify as notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Three birthday articles (one of which derives its facts from one of the others) and a obit do not amount to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of each other and of the subject. The only possible claim to notability is living a long time and that's just not enough to clear the hurdle for a stand-alone article, per WP:NOPAGE This should become a redirect to the list of oldest Americans. David in DC (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect for others. And the Army article is not an independent source, with Harris being a veteran and it talking about what is essentially a birthday gift from the Army. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oldest verified man in the United States is meets the guidelines--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which guidelines? Certainly not WP:GNG as I've explained above. This material fits firmly inside WP:NOPAGE It does not call for a stand-alone article. It calls for inclusion in the eleventy-five WOP lists and a redirect to Oldest Americans. David in DC (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Marge to List of supercentenarians from the United States#People. it is impossible to obliterate this article.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete or Redirect/merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. WP:NOPAGE, insufficient encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's not forget. He was not just the oldest American but also the Oldest person from Illinois, the oldest person born in Ayshire, IL, the oldest person to have died in Rocksjire, IL, and even the oldest person to have joined the US army for WWII but failed to have left basic training due to a broken foot. These titles show precisely the kinds of awards that make him notable:l 166.176.56.52 (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC) — 166.176.56.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... in Oldgeezer-opedia. Merge and redirect per 153.151.83.197 here. Being a supercentenarian is not enough in itself, as has been demonstrated over and over again by past Afd verdicts. I'm hoping 166.176.56.52 is being sarcastic (in which case, I love it). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying does not hold true and is, in fact, an example of ageist-bias; there have been numerous supercentenarian articles over the past couple of weeks/months that have been kept, proving that age in itself can be notable. Present the facts as they are if you wish to hold a discussion that takes every aspect of the matter into account. Fiskje88 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that proves that some supercentenarians can pass WP:GNG on their own. Your argument is an absolute: the world's oldest will be automatically notable but there exists cases where it hasn't. The alternative is "the world's oldest person article is not per se notable based on them being the world's oldest person" which is why there's a debate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even been reading what I was saying; I was saying that some supercentenarians did pass an AfD nomination, as such pointing out that Clarityfiend had failed to acknowledge that part. Nothing absolute about that. Fiskje88 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have. The comment was "Being a supercentenarian is not enough in itself, as has been demonstrated over and over again by past Afd verdicts." Your point that there exists discussions that were kept doesn't change that comment. Being a player who has played a single Tier 1 international soccer match is itself notable per WP:NFOOTY. It doesn't apply to supercentenarians at the moment as Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Add_longevity was declined. Make a proposal there if you'd like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different interpretation of the same thing; you could just as well say that being a supercentenarian is enough in itself, as numerous AfDs have been proven pointless. As always, we look at the matter differently and will have to agree to disagree. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States#People. His notability consists entirely of eligibility for that list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that's a very elegant complement to the NOPAGE argument -- where a person's notability consists, as you say, entirely of his or her eligibility for a list, and there's nothing but pedestrian things to say about him or her (birth, worked, married, died), it becomes perfectly obvious that the best place to present them in in that list. EEng (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per reasons above. Not notable. Even if notable, WP:NOPAGE. The only things of interest about this person are date of birth and date of death, meaning they clearly belong as part of a list. ~ Rob^Talk 18:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The fact that he worked until the age of 102 is also something that further adds to his notability. And considering that he was the oldest living American man he could be seen as notable. Instead of deleting the effort made by others, why not just improve the article? 930310 (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cardwell

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG - coverage in a (Scottish) national newspaper that is not trivial and goes into significant depth, talking about his (youth) career to date and family [66]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Agree that the above source is a lengthy article on the player, but that is the only source I could find during a quick google search that could be deemed significant enough to support GNG. Everything else is just routine transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. One decent article is not "significant" coverage, I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 18:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nfooty is well established - 1 top tier appearance, just 1 minute on the field is enough. Szzuk (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curran Ferns

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best, would be notable if he plays for Johor Darul Ta'zim FC, but is not notable at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, too soon, currently insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volabit

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

This is particularly interesting. A company that appears totally un-notable, with most of the refs being basically mere notices in the usual bitcoin trade publication--but also a short article in the WSJr written by a regular member of the newspaper's staff, but being essentially just a PR announcement. Are they in the habit of republishing announcements of every new company formed in this area? Perhaps they are not quite as reliable a source for notability as we have thought. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News particularly found some links but nothing considerably better. Pinging 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (you'll Eclipsed is listed at the history). SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. No indication of notability. Ana r chyte 11:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of short paragraphs in one reliable source doesn't really meet the standard of extensive coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in WP:RS. This may become notable in the future, but for now delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Master Anthology of Fingerstyle Guitar Solos. p. 96.

[2] "Fractal Reflections, Brad Richter. Harmon Records". Arizona Daily Star.

[3] "'String Theory': quantum leap of cello, guitar". Arizona Daily Star.

[4] "The Guitar Hour: Brad Richter". Spokane Public Radio. – 49 minute radio interview (page includes link to listen to interview)

[5] "An Interview with Brad Richter". Guitarra Magazine.

[6] "Guitarist's works alluring, majestic". Deseret News. (subscription required)

[7] "Classical guitarist plays for students; public performance slated for Friday". Kingman Daily Miner. – At first glance, this seems like a routine announcement, but be sure to scroll over to the rest of the article on page two. The article also covers aspects of the subject's music and his interaction with students

[8] "Musician Appointed to Teach Guitar". The Herald. (subscription required)

[9] "Guitarist seeks 'conversation'". Deseret News. (subscription required)

[10] "Richter's 'Whisper' has innovation, virtuosity". Deseret News. (subscription required)

[11] "Guitarist Richter is home for CD release". Arizona Daily Star.

[12] "Lauded guitarist Richter to perform". Arizona Daily Star (subscription required). – Another article that appears routine at first glance, but notice how it includes content about the subject himself

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]