The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Nyttend as a long-expired PROD. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Frank Major (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable person. Fails PORNBIO. Bbdott ( talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:17, 3 November 2014 (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/2014 November 3. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. This porn star is clearly not notable but admin Nyttend declined the PROD for technical reasons relating to copyright. His input on this would be welcome. The article just barely clears A7. A search for reliable source coverage yielded a single award nomination. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Followup comment See the final section of Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 April 2 for a response. I'll request assistance at WP:RDL for resolving the copyright issue, and once that's done, I'll delete this article as a long-expired prod, since (as far as I can tell) my action was meant only to hold off deletion until we could get the copyright situation resolved. I'd appreciate it if someone else would close this AFD procedurally — until the tr: message is completed, this mustn't be deleted, while as soon as it's completed, the article will be deleted without the AFD. Nyttend ( talk) 00:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite ( talk) 16:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Deleted, per the followup comment that I made above. Nyttend ( talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Ethan Dettenmaier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a screenwriter, podcaster and film director, teetering on the edge of advertorial tone and relying exclusively on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage to properly verify that he qualifies for an article under any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules. He might certainly qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but this article is not keepable in its current form. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: resume-style bio that is not sufficiently notable at this juncture. Quis separabit? 02:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete As is this article is WP:RESUME. -- Clean-up-wiki-guy ( talk) 02:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MP & Silva. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 22:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Andrea Radrizzani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Radrizzani was a co-founder of MP & Silva together with Riccardo Silva. Silva's article was deleted following AfD in 2012 (recently re-deleted following recreation) for the same reasons I think this article about Radrizzani needs to go too - the biographical info is uncited while the remainder hangs on brief mentions in articles (or 'stuff on the internet') about the company. Radrizzani is not independently notable. There is already a mini-biog in the MP & Silva article so, at best, the article should be redirected here. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk) 22:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to MP & Silva per nom's sound analysis, no independent notability. Cavarrone 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to MP & Silva, although it may be worth looking to see if anything in this article is worth adding to the bio in that one. (The word counts look similar so perhaps not.) LaMona ( talk) 21:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

The People's Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. There are no sources showing notability for this festival; it was originally supposed to be called the Man Olympics but there is no significant coverage of it under that name either. The event was apparently held for the first time this year so it is probably simply too early for it; if and when it becomes notable, there can be an article about it, but not before. bonadea contributions talk 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - My cursory search of the internets for (THE PEOPLE'S GAMES) + (MAN OLYMPICS) returned a few YouTube videos. Pretty clear failure of our General Notability Guidelines. Carrite ( talk) 16:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Deelet4e reltively minor events with no notability. DGG ( talk ) 11:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Adam Robert Sahlberg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject has achieved quite a few medals and decorations, but is this worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia? The article was tagged A7 for several hours, which I have declined as I think it needs discussion, not speedy. The tagger thinks this fails WP:SOLDIER, and I think I agree. Peridon ( talk) 21:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. His awards are not notable and this article sounds more like a puff piece. Hard to believe it had been on WP for 4yrs without anyone noticing Gbawden ( talk) 05:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete while the subject has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, the subject has not received significant coverage in non-primary or secondary reliable sources, therefore the subject appears to not be notable as defined by WP:GNG. As a Soldier, the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:SOLDIER. Therefore, at this time the subject does not appear to be notable, and it is my recommendation that this article is deleted.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 13:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. None of his awards are notable enough to qualify him for an article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER. His awards do not cause him to pass WP:GNG. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 03:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing to support WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Muamer Tufekčić (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable as either kickboxer WP:KICK or boxer WP:BOX. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete It looks like he had some success as an amateur (WAKO), but I didn't find anything to show he meets WP:KICK or WP:GNG since the coverage appears to be just routine fight coverage (results and announcements). Mdtemp ( talk) 19:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers and, as far as I can tell, he doesn't have the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 22:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Pot Casserole (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I have found no reliable source on the existence of Pot Casserole. DrDevilFX ( talk) 20:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete At best this is not notable, at worst it's a hoax. Either way, delete. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing turns up in a search. -- Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It's definitely real, but it's just not notable enough for an article. My searches turned up the odd "Do you remember..."-type post in forums and on social networks but nothing like the coverage needed. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 00:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - WP:GNG - Lack of reliable secondary sources. Too bad, because I find it an interesting topic. Sincerely, Taketa ( talk) 10:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrDevilFX ( talk) 20:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No sources, no notability. Also delete Pot Rice. No sources, no notability. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 21:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Additionally Pot Mash should be deleted. -- DrDevilFX ( talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I propose to consider this snow delete discussion for all the three not-notable articles mentioned here. Delete all. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• I've prodded Pot Rice and Pot Mash, as they have no sources and I can't find any to suggest they're notable enough for inclusion. Deletion seems uncontroversial to me so let's try and forego the deletion discussion :) Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 01:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete All There are no WP:RS to establish any notability. -- Clean-up-wiki-guy ( talk) 02:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#G3. The inability to verify this location's existence and the disruptive edits by the article's creator (and its obvious sockpuppet) lead to the conclusion that this is a hoax or some other sort of vandalism. I have no prejudice to recreation if the existence of this location can be verified in reliable sources; however, the deleted article in its present form is of no value, in my opinion. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 19:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Anaitha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to find any proof of existence: Google maps, GeoNames, some UN website. Also nominating Anaitha,Nepal. Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 19:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete appears to be a hoax. Note: also not on this map of the district in which it purports to lie When deleting this, make sure to remove the incoming links which seem all to be created by the same user who created this one. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Original author has been blocked from editing: 17:27, 3 October 2014 HJ Mitchell blocked Ravi kumar sah-sonar (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandalism-only account)
• Delete. I'm going to get you and your little dog too for want of even one WP:RS to say these exist. K7L ( talk) 15:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Certified Divorce Financial Analyst (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested CSD. Nothing indicates notability, neither for the certificate nor for the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts. No reliable sources. Dewritech ( talk) 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• As the one that removed the original CSD tag, delete. Talk page discussion has not gone anywhere. -- Richard Yin ( talk) 18:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not appear to have enough coverage in independent reliable sources (most Google results are just ads for people who do this, and Google books turns up mainly passing mentions). Jinkinson talk to me 20:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• dekete no substantial notbility DGG ( talk )
• delete Certified <Foo>ian, by the Institute of <Foo>ians. We would need sourcing from outside this COI niche. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Peter Grenader (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Inadequately sourced promotional biography. Gamaliel ( talk) 05:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, most sources in article and on Google are not reliable, being blogs or social media sites or what have you. Fails WP:BIO. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This article is a mess. Notability of the subject is borderline, I'm seeing a big enough web footprint to constitute a probable pass. Seems to be a controversial bio on top of it all, so TNT without prejudice towards future recreation might be the best result here. Carrite ( talk) 16:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment There is a strong hint of WP:COI as someone named PlanBguy (PlanB is the name of his company) is the original creator and primary contributor to this. One option would be to remove all of the unsourced or undersourced material, leave a stub, and see if anyone other than the subject himself has an interest in contributing to the article. I didn't find any significant resources, however, so after giving the stub a chance this may be a clear delete. LaMona ( talk) 22:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Pi Sigma Epsilon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see notability to meet WP:CORP. Yes, it get some hits on Google books; they seem to be mainly people who've been part of this, not coverage of the institution itself. It doesn't help that the article itself is entirely unreferenced. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 18:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete No significant third party coverage, non notable. -- Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 22:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Airdriehill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a different scenario to other locations in North Lanarkshire that I felt should be deleted. Google Maps shows "Airdriehill Farm", but there is no evidence of Airdriehill existing as a settlement or a village/hamlet. DrDevilFX ( talk) 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 18:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Nothing on the North Lanarkshire Council website indicates that they recognise this as a place. A Google trip down Airdriehill Road shows little save grass verge, some trees and at one point a dry stane dyke. AllyD ( talk) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above. -- Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly not notable. May not exist as described. Wondering if this should be Speedy Deleted G3. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rhododendrites' argument is the best developed and seems to carry the weight of consensus. Mojo Hand ( talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Becky's Diner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable restaurant. Philafrenzy ( talk) 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - though it wasn't totally clear in the last AfD despite the closer's comments, it does pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Several reviews in medium-to-high-profile magazines as well as, it seems, three different Food Network shows (see here). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article is predicated on tertiary source (a source reporting on other sources without factual attribution), and a dead link. This diner would be best represented in reviews and other sources outside of Wikipedia. There are some similar entries which might be worthy (but not really) of inclusion such as Peter Luger Steak House or Katz's Delicatessen but there are hundreds of "famous" places that simply do not belong in an Encyclopedia. AAA guide, yes, Fromers, Yes.. Any of these "famous" places will find mentions here and there, paid promotional local or otherwise.-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 18:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Again, as with many other AfDs you've participated in now, the present citations don't matter to whether or not it should be kept. All that matter is that they exist. This restaurant was featured on three different Food Network shows and the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. It's our job to apply the community-created criteria for notability, not make up our own. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Rachel Ray, Guy Fieri, ... Postcard Cathy ( talk) 12:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Rhododendrites and I added a couple more local sources. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Ron Brewington (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable broadcaster. Award appears spurious. Philafrenzy ( talk) 17:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Question. Could the nominator please explain xis comment that the award "appears spurious"? The Brewington twins are listed at the hall of fame's website and their selection was reported elsewhere, including several sources that report news of particular interest to African-American readers: Redding News Review [1]; Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education [2]. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

  You can nominate yourself for the award: "We welcome your interest in Broadcasters Hall of Fame Membership. Please complete the following form and submit for review. We will contact you shortly following application review by our Board of Trustees. Please note current membership fee is $25 payable only if application is approved." I am applying right now! $25 is cheap to enter a hall of fame. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article which is largely unsourced (and un-source-able) has been serially-numerously nominated for deletion and rightly so. Do we have the guts to delete anything on Wikipedia? Factually, this bio is not noteworthy. -- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 18:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 22:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

AKR Global Group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable private company, article tagged as unreferenced for nearly two years. Even the company website is a deadlink - in fact the address akr-global.com is for sale and akrglobal.com is suspended.

At the beginning of 2013 there was this extremely spammy version, full of glowing adjectives but giving no hard information like turnover or staff numbers. That was PRODded, and the PROD promptly removed by an IP. The article was then trimmed back to this more neutral, but still uninformative, short version,

This site claims that AKR is "one of the largest North American based conglomerates", but in view of the lack of confirmation elsewhere I find that impossible to believe. Other searches find only routine listings and an April 2012 press release announcing the intention to open a call center in a place called "The Phillipeans". If that actually happened, it did not make the news. A web-hosting subsidiary called Smartweb is the only sign of current activity I can find. There is a one-minute Youtube "Corporate video" which says nothing, and a Twitter account where @AKRGlobal hasn't tweeted yet.

Conclusion: there is not the necessary "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" to establish notability. JohnCD ( talk) 17:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnCD ( talk) 17:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JohnCD ( talk) 17:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Conclusion of nominator correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence that this firm is notable. AllyD ( talk) 20:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lacks WP:RS to establish WP:GNG -- Jersey92 ( talk) 03:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Should not be at AfD. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 19:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Goshpur ezra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Can we copy over the code to a new article with a capital E (of Ezra)? TheMagikCow ( talk) 17:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The correct action is a page move to Goshpur Ezra, not deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Moving a page. There is no need to take this to AfD. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was just a redirect. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Gadai sarai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Could we copy the whole code the create a new article with a capitilised S ( of Sarai)? TheMagikCow ( talk) 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete moved article to Gadai Sarai Avono♂ ( talk) 18:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Gurubochon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Reliable sources are provided to give the article the appearance of being well-sourced, however inspecting the sources that are accessible (in English) reveals they are not actually about (or even mention) the subject of the article. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC) CorporateM ( Talk) 23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 00:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Sources that actually talk about the site are hard to find, regardless of language. Dennis - 2¢ 01:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment The article's talk page explains why I accepted it at WP:AFC. It is still my hope that the community is able to improve it such that it genuinely merits a place here. I believe there to be no merit in opting to return it to the Draft: namespace, something no-one has yet suggested. We need a good clear outcome here. Fiddle Faddle 13:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - As per nomination and @ Dennis Brown:. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 14:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pivotal Greenplum Database. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Greenplum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article appears to be written like an advertisement and administrator's guide Jp harris2008 ( talk) 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 16:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect "GreenPlum is a division of Pivotal Software"-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Large portion of this article is about Pivotal Greenplum Database instead of the company. Maybe some information should be moved to Pivotal Greenplum Database Jp harris2008 ( talk) 18:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious keep. Ethnic groups are pretty much guaranteed notable. I really don't understand the proposers deletion rationale, unless it was to imply that they might not actually exist, in which case WP:BEFORE would easily have settled that. Spinning Spark 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Mathi Mathi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Lots of name dropping but absolutely no evidence. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Muthi Muthi mentioned in this journal:-

Dening, Greg Journal Article, Aug 1999 - Subject : Muthi Muthi & Barkindji peoples Summerdrought ( talk) 03:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Mathi Mathi mentioned in this book:-

The Story of Burke and Wills:Forgotten Narratives [3]

These two sources seem to confirm the content of the article Summerdrought ( talk) 05:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• National Native Title Tribunal (Australia). Research Unit [4]

Additional online reference. Summerdrought ( talk) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 00:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep, based on references above, which would indicate this is a legitimate grouping. It pays to be really careful on these sort of articles, especially as often the spelling of these groups in English is not consistent, which can foil Google searches. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 13:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC). reply
• Keep, agree with the comment above. The National Native Title Tribunal reference also has examples of spelling differences as mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Summerdrought ( talk) 21:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep for the reasons given above. -- Bduke (Discussion) 20:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

The following references relate to the Mathi Mathi Aboriginal Tribe of Australia:

Penney, J. 2005. Edwards, Agnes (1873–1928) Australian Dictionary of Biography, Supplementary Volume, (MUP). Kijas, J. 2003. Women and Landscape: NSW Western Parks Project. An Historical Study of Women and Outback Landscapes for the Cultural Heritage Division of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Douglas, K. 1996. Land Systems and Stratigraphy of Lake Mulurulu: Examination of Quaternary Palaeoenvironments. unpublished Honours Thesis. University of Melbourne. Hardy, B. 1969 West of the Darling, Jacaranda Press. Jamieson, H. 1861 First Report to the Central Board appointed to watch over the interests of the Aborigines in the colony of Victoria. McBride, I. 2003. Australian Aboriginal Studies Volume 2. Bowler, J. 2003. ‘Tribal loyalties’: reconnecting with the land A tribute to Mrs Alice Kelly, 1919–2003 Aboriginal History Volume 27 Meehan, B . 1972. The Form, Distribution and Antiquity of Australian Aboriginal Mortuary Practices. University of Sydney. unpublished Honours Thesis. Pressey, R. 1990. Willandra Lakes World Heritage Region Regional Environmental Study. Sydney: NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Sue Jackson, Brad Moggridge and Cathy Robinson . June 2010. Effects of changes in water availability on Indigenous people of the Murray-Darling Basin: a scoping study. CSIRO. Williams, D. 1991. The Case of the Shattered Stones: An Analysis of Three Aboriginal Quarry/Reduction Sites from the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area, South Western New South Wales. unpublished Honours Thesis. Australian National University. Lawrence, H. Mungo Over Millennia: The Willandra Landscape and its People. Maygog Publishing. Hobart, Australia. Mutthi Mutthi Nations 2007.Handback Leaseback Proposal for Yanga National Park. National Water Commission 2014. A Review of Indigenous Involvement in Water Planning, 2013. Canberra Aboriginal People and Squatters Mineral Sands Developments in the NSW Portion of the Murray Basin A Trip on the Rivers - There and Back Again - Part III NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2006. Mungo National Park Plan of Management. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW). Commonwealth of Australia 2009 Gazette No. GN 36, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 Proud Race 2014 Eva-Joe Edwards Yingadi Aboriginal Corporation. The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931) Wednesday 28 December 1910 Humphries, P. 2007. Historical Indigenous use of aquatic resources in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin, and its implications for river management. Ecological Management and Restoration 8:2 pp.106-113 National Parks and Wildlife Service 2010 Mungo 1788-1901 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service National Parks and Wildlife Service 2010 Mungo 1901-1967 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service National Parks and Wildlife Service 2010 Mungo 1967> NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Cunningham 1817. Unpublishd Private Journal. Botanist to Oxley’s First Expedition to the Interior. Oxley, J. J. 1820. Journals of Two Expeditions into the Interior of New South Wales, by order of the British Government in the years 1817-18 – Part I. London. Mitchell, T L: 1838. Three Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia. Vols 1 & 2

I would therefore suggest this is a legitimate subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.116.12.176 ( talk) 14:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

References to the people mentioned in the article: Chaise Eade- www.deadlyvibe.com.au/2013/06/author-chaise-eades-second-novel/ and http://bookstore.xlibris.com/Products/SKU-0501122050/SECOND-LIFE.aspx Kutcha Edwards- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutcha_Edwards and www.kutcha-edwards.com Gary Pappin- http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/research/publications/ProtectingCountry5.pdf and http://www.wakool.com.au Jack Long- https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-337617945/the-mathi-group-of-languages Ballandella- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mitchell_(explorer) Turundery- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indigenous_Australian_historical_figures Harry Nanya- http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/nanya-7725 Mungo Man- http://www.crystalinks.com/mungoman.html Mungo Lady- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains John Winch- http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/john-winch.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.116.12.176 ( talk) 14:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep ­— It sure seems like this article can be fixed and that notability can be established with all of the academic and government publications in the wall of text references and the more formatted ones pasted into this discussion. For sure, the article is not there yet but this is fixable. — mako ๛ 18:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Jay Hogart (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable TV character. Article full of excessive plot details and zero references. Gloss 13:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No indication of notability. All info is in universe, no independent coverage. - SummerPhD ( talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Lacks notability on it's own but is part of a notable group. Tchaliburton ( talk) 14:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Television characters do not automatically qualify for separate standalone articles just because they exist — if you cannot add reliable sources which provide real-world context for why the character is a notable topic in an encyclopedia, then all they really warrant is inclusion in a list of characters. But that's not what this is — it's just an in-universe summary of plots he was involved in, which provides no demonstration whatsoever of why this belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a Degrassi fansite. Delete or merge into a character list unless real sources demonstrating real notability can actually be added. Bearcat ( talk) 22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

British Society for Ecological Medicine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Failed to find discussion of this organization in secondary sources beyond mere passing mentions. No results in NewsBank aside from 2 letters-to-the-editor. Most of the journal articles were self-attributed to the president of the organization itself. Note: I hadn't ever heard of this organization before reading a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (2nd nomination). — Cirt ( talk) 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt ( talk) 08:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete and WP:SALT. Does not conform with WP:GNG or WP:NONPROFIT. QuackGuru ( talk) 09:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article has failed to develop-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 18:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lacks WP:RS and fails WP:NONPROFIT -- Jersey92 ( talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Vivi Pineda (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this WP:BLP, do not believe GNG is met. Also, do not believe that her career accomplishments meet the criteria for NACTOR. J04n( talk page) 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 13:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 13:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 14:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A working actor, but her career to date is some way short of notability. AllyD ( talk) 11:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Darlyne Bailey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable ( WP:NACADEMIC). Only notable in relation to Madonna Constantine. Can be a redirect, I guess, if there is consensus. Quis separabit? 02:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Appears to primarily be a university administrator (not researcher), at an insufficiently high level for WP:PROF#C6. Much of the article is a guilt-by-association WP:COATRACK that does not pass WP:PERP and is problematic with respect to WP:BLP. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naga Shourya. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Naga shourya (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable Telugu actor. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Naga Shourya (the article already exists), and speedy close. Worth taking a few precautionary steps before coming to AfD next time. czar  ♔ 22:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Ho Sin Tung (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Autobiography with primarily self-pub sources Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The subject's developing artist awards fall far short, and I cannot see coverage at this stage that could meet the WP:ARTIST criteria. At best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD ( talk) 08:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spinning Spark 19:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Cyprus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I started cleaning up this article (which incorrectly came through AfC; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#AFCH Requirements for use and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#My use of AFCH for details) I found that all of the sources used on this article where not RELIABLE or consisted entirely of OR. I have removed those sources, and having done that, there is nothing left to indicated notability or importance (all of the material is already covered in other broader articles as I understand it). — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 15:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Subject-matter is irrelevant. -- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 19:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I don't see that it's any less valid than any other list in this category. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Except that it's entirely unsourced and shows no evidence of notability... — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Please be updated. All information in the page is now linked to Criteria Meeting Sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply
      • There is one item on the list with only one source... First, an item doesn't make a list in my opinion. Second, one website as a source does not make the requirement of "significant coverage" per WP:42. — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply
        • All other items were deleted due to lack of sources (note that some references were deleted because the source pages did not open for some users) or even links to Wikipedia pages, even though most of articles in Wikipedia categorized as lists have at least one item with no Wikipedia links to it. Also, there are some articles in Wikipedia that have no sources at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.215.22 ( talk) 16:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply
          • OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid inclusion reason either. — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 19:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. An editor blanking an entire page, except for one item, if that editor is simultaneously the nominator for the page on AfD is a show of bad faith. The template is clear "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" and blanking all but a single list item is a rather obvious end-run against the spirit of that guideline. K7L ( talk) 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I did not blank the entire page, I removed all of the copyright violations and removed all content except what was permissible by policy. Calling me a bad faith editor, is a personal attack from you against me. I, however, do not care to pursue it and instead will AGF on your part. I've restored the page to the proper condition, as I am "free to edit the page" and it is not blanked. — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 17:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • You blanked all but a single item. You're wikilawyering here. K7L ( talk) 18:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I removed unacceptable content. This is hardly the same as BLANKing the page. — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 19:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Would you care to explain what "unacceptable content" you removed? I can see none whatsoever. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep — If we're going to keep Category:Lists of tallest buildings in Europe full of pages that are exactly like this, why on earth would we not keep this one? This seems like a totally valid list to have in the encyclopedia. If the content is mostly WP:COPYVIO (that seems to be an implication made in this discussion), lets just put together a new list! I'll also point out that because facts (like the height of buildings) are not copyrightable, I'm pretty skeptical about the WP:COPYVIO claims or at least about the idea that wouldn't trivially rewrite the content to work around this. — mako ๛ 18:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Hinduism and Ecology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be an essay and WP:SYNTH. Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 15:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly SYNTH and OR. We have Pollution in India, Pollution of the Ganges, etc. Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - it's not clear that a 2,700 year old religion has something unique to say about a recent concept. Please convince us otherwise. Bearian ( talk) 17:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly not an encyclopedia article. See WP:SYNTH. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 03:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spinning Spark 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Gregg L Greer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No actual notability, no actual secondary sources other than social media sites, his blog, and an article saying he came in a distant third in an election for a local town council seat. Created by a single purpose account with likely conflict of interest. Brianyoumans ( talk) 13:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Notability-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note - Material and references have been added to the article. One says that Greer was the SCLC organizer for a protest about the George Stinney case in Clarendon County, South Carolina (where Stinney lived) that attracted local media attention. Other added references appear less relevant. Brianyoumans ( talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• • Note-Correct and additional references have been added to this page. Also public views on wiki analytics show worthy and continuous response overall. Suggestion to Keep is advised. ( Greeralivetoday talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Neutral There seem to be a lot of links from WP:RS, but the article is so poorly wikified that it is difficult to determine the true notability of the subject and the relevance of GNG.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I don't think it meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, some of the sources are still questionable. Many sources don't mention the subject and the ones that do are not reliable, like facebook and about.me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellsgood ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dwaipayan ( talk) 20:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Mohammad Moniruzzaman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable and no reliable source. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 13:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The Banglapedia entry is quite extensive, and even if one cannot depend on that, I have found enough references to various of his works to convince me he was a prolific, if nothing else. Stubify if necessary, but I think it should be kept. Brianyoumans ( talk) 14:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

And through WP:INDAFD: Mohammad Moniruzzaman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep a little research shows this Bangladeshi individual appears notable enough (even if only to India) to be worthy of inclusion here. Since he died 4 years ago, this is not a BLP violation, and it seems he has made his mark. I question the wisdom of rushing an article to AFD hours after it was contributed without at least tagging it for editorial attention and giving its author an opportunity to address issues. It also seems this man was a Shibir district unit president. [5] Sorry... but how could the nominator not have looked first? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep. per Schmidt and Brianyoumans. Drive by AfD tag by Tamravidhir on a newly created stub. Nominator should do at least a quick search before bugging other editors with needless AfDs. –  nafSadh did say 00:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Chhutir Ghonta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable and no reliable source. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 13:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Comment: Brand new stub article sent to AFD without even tagging for editorial attention. Are we somehow in a hurry? Pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source, but that difficulty does not make a part of Bengali cinematic history automatically non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - notable film released in 1980, found this source which is quite extensive.-- Zayeem ^(talk) 11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Suitable stub that meets WP:NF through winning an award at the national level. source as translated from Bengali Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. Thanks go to Kmzayeem and MichaelQSchmidt for finding/adding a source. However, the web site (even the untranslated version) is barely functional, with most menu choices not working. There's no evidence this site has a reputation for fact checking -- or that it does any fact checking at all. A Facebook page with the same name is even worse. Hence, a claim to a national award isn't certain. However, given the difficulty of finding information for older Indian films, I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 20:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - as per above comments. Jethwarp ( talk) 02:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sulby, Isle of Man. MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Sulby Bridge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Hall. Brianyoumans ( talk) 17:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Sulby, Isle of Man. Mjroots ( talk) 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 22:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Nabil Guedioura (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Murry1975 ( talk) 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 ( talk) 11:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Has not played fully professional - so the subject fails WP:GNG WP:NFOOTY
• Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA ( talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP: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) 16:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete He did not play in a fully professional league as required by WP:NFOOTY. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 03:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 simple count of votes might have led to a "no consensus" close. However, in terms of policy based arguments, I am calling this one for the delete camp. References to McGreevy were presented, but as Sionk pointed out, mere mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. It can demonstrably be shown by the article references that McGreevy took part in some public exhibitions, but again this is insufficient to demonstrate notability and this was pointed out by several participants in the debate. An artist exhibiting her work is essentially just the job description of an artist. In the same way, we do not accept that scholarly publications are evidence of the notability of the publishing scholar, that is just the expected activity of academics and researchers, whether notable or not. Of the references in the article, the only one with substantial coverage appears to have been written by McGreevy herself, so is not acceptable for notability.

Of the other sources suggested during the debate, the most promising were found by Lankiveil. It was indicated that there is an article in the defunct magazine Performance. However, insufficient information was given for others to locate this article. I have searched for it myself: there is an index of the magazine contents available online but I can find no mention of McGreevy anywhere from issues 32 to 37 (which I think covers the year 1985, given as the date). Lankiveil also mentioned a Sydney Morning Herald article, but McGreevy is not named in the title and no details were given of the actual article content. Without enough information being given for other editors to assess them for notability or to locate the articles themselves then this is not sufficient. If copies of these sources are found and they are shown to establish notability, I will happily restore the article.

The long discussion on the question of the lack of an obit I have pretty much discounted either way. The existence of an obit is evidence of notability. The lack of one means nothing at all. Spinning Spark 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Rose Anne McGreevy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I found a website that mentions that she died about 5 days ago. And yet, I can't find any obituaries in any news publications. If a notable person dies, they are in the news, and here I see a complete absence of coverage. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

 Comment: This article is part of Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/ArtAndFeminism MCA October 2014. -- 99of9 ( talk) 03:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note This article has been moved to Rose Ann McGreevy. Pam D 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Article doesn't make any claims of notability - probably should have been tagged as A7 rather than AfD. -- Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 03:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I didn't since my online searching indicated that a knowledgeable person would be able to find more sources and information about her - most of her career would have been pre-internet. Speedy deletion criteria allows me to nominate, but does not require it. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: have expanded the article somewhat with refs to several exhibitions. She appears to be just about notable: please leave time for those more au fait with sculpture and the Australian arts scene to expand the article. Pam D 09:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Article content has since been expanded and referenced - please assume good faith and give the contributors a chance to flesh out the article with further details -- Chuq (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The article may not be filled with content or many sources (yet), but sources showing notability look to be widely available. A simple search (see here) reveals that she's referenced in many books. Notability is not dependent upon an article saying "It's notable because..." or by a lack of an article's references to sources proving notability. Notability is dependent upon sources being available (see WP:NRVE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah ( talk • contribs)
• Delete. We need more than she is a sculptor who has had work in exhibitions. I can't see anything remarkable to distinguish this artist above thousands of others. Notability is yet to be established. - Shiftchange ( talk) 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The subject fails WP:ARTIST. There are no significant awards, notable works, innovative techniques or anything else associated with notability. WWGB ( talk) 02:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep, it appears that an exhibition by McGreevy received a substantial critical review in the 1985 edition of "Performance Magazine". It certainly appears reliable enough to contribute to WP:N to my inexpert eyes. More generally speaking, I think that given that McGreevy's career fell in the "dark zone" between when coverage is in the public domain and when coverage started to appear on the Internet. It is therefore not surprising that a Google search doesn't turn much up, but it's not particularly surprising either. I propose to wait six months while those editing the page find better sources, hopefully without being mauled by more seasoned editors, and we re-assess the article then. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 09:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Comment. I've had a look on Factiva now that I have a bit more time, and turned up an additional dead tree era source that doesn't seem to be online:
    • Saurin, Jo (18 January 1991). "CORROSION, NATURE AND HUMOUR IN COHESION". Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax. p. 16.
  • There is also this file at the State Library of Victoria concerning this person, which might contain relevant items, not being in Melbourne I don't have easy access however. I am increasingly convinced the sources are out there though! Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC). reply
• Question If this person is really a notable sculptur, then why hasn't anyone in the media noticed that she died 10 days ago? Notable people get articles in newspapers when they die, and here all I see is a post on vimeo. If she was notable, why does no one in the media care that she just died? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 14:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Fair question. I'm very doubtful about the notability of this person - there is certainly not the wealth of references suggested above. Deb ( talk) 15:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack ( talk) 14:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete onthe basis we don't write articles about every artist that makes art.We need to see significant news coverage/reviews/awards etc. According to the info so far gathered she has contributed to a couple of group exhibitions and, as the nominator says, her passing does not seem to have been covered by the media. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk ( talk) 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep or userfy The nomination was unnecessarily rushed; I agree that we should give the author some more time to work on the article. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, considering it makes no claims to notability it would have been justified for speedy deletion, let alone AfD. If there's some claim to noteworthiness, an author has at least to include it. No-one yet has come up with evidence of her notability (brief mentions in a Google search hardly count). Sionk ( talk) 11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • @ Sionk:Comments like these scare the crap out of me. Do people really think that this article is speedy deletable? I mean, if so, just imagine the massive volume of worthy stubs that are getting deleted. Speedy deletion is very limited for good reason. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Australian artist who has exhibited in four group shows. Are you seriously saying that is a claim to notability? In that case, any professional who does their job would be notable. Sionk ( talk) 15:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
        • WP:SIGNIFICANCE - A claim to notability is not required to avoid speedy deletion, only a credible claim of significance, which this article clearly has. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
          • And what claim is that, pray? Sionk ( talk) 22:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
            • Did you read the linked page? Number 4, 5 & 6 all apply here. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
              • Well it's pointless trading "did you read my comments" comments. A claim that an artist has exhibited in an art exhibition is not a claim of significance. It's what artists do. Sionk ( talk) 17:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 10:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep, subject is notable Article was just created! why is it flagged so quickly for deletion?-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out ( talk) 19:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Just because it is new it does not mean it is exempt from deletion discussions. -- Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 01:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • And assertions of notability without rationale or justification are unhelpful to a deletion discussion. WWGB ( talk) 06:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Uncertain, but what I am certain about is that the failure to find an obit (presumably this means failure to find an obit in Google) 10 days after a person's death is not proof of non-notability. The only places that publish obits that quickly are newspapers, and they tend to publish only for those famous, or well=known political or entertainment or sports personalities. Probably 95% of the bios in WP do not have an obit in 10 days. Where I';d expect an obit is in an Arts magazine or the like, and these are usually published ,only at best, and might perfectly appear a year or two later, or longer. The time distribution would be an interesting research project. But failure to find sources in Google is not proof of non-notabillity for any type of source whatsoever for any subject whatsoever, , except for people or other subjects in the types of fields which would certainly have them. Even if there is never of obit accessible online, it doesn't prove anything; we are not limited to on-line sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)
• Note: I've submitted an 'ask a librarian' enquiry to the National Library asking if they can identify any obituaries (or equivalent) in popular or industry-press. Any sources they can identify should be able to refute (or indeed validate) the deletion nomination. Therefore, please wait for a few days until their response returns. Sincerely, Witty lama 14:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I've received a response from the NLA:

"I'm afraid that I was unable to find any obituaries written for the artist Rose Ann McGreevy in the popular press. I consulted the following (hard copy) newspaper issues:

Sydney Morning Herald 21-25 October; Daily Telegraph 21-24 October; Sun Herald 26 October; Australian 21-24 October; Weekend Australian 25-26.

Obituaries in specialist or industry publications may take longer to be published than those in the popular press. For example, I also consulted all 2014 issues of Art Monthly Australia (included in the Informit Literature and Culture Collection database, which can be accessed by registered Library users from home), and found that, in each issue, obituaries were published 2 - 5 months after the subject's death. For example, if an artist died in November 2013, their obituary might appear in the April 2014 issue; if an artist died in June 2014, their obituary might be published in the September issue.

Finally, for your interest, it could be noted in the Wikipedia article that Rose Ann McGreevy published a book (of which the National Library holds the only copy). Details of the book are available at http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn5151268 The book contains images of McGreevy's works from selected shows in 2000-1010."

I hope this provides useful insight into this deletion debate and I suggest that it might be worthwhile using the Ask A Librarian when other Australia-related deletion debates come up that could use the help of the dedicated reference librarian team at the NLA :-) Witty lama 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- Unfortunately at the moment none of the four sources satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. Certainly no independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in detail. We need two of these. Am happy to change to keep if two can be found. (If they are found feel free to ping me). -- Shudde ^talk 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep — The references that folks have found suggest that this person makes it past the notability threshold. I just don't don't buy the obituary litmus test for the reasons that DGG raised: (a) obituaries may in fact be forthcoming in non-newspapers and (b) WP:NOTABILITY simply doesn't mean that you need obituaries written about you! Obituary or not, the fact the subject has died means that some of the concerns with WP:BLPs in general no longer apply here the normal risks and cautiousness we take in those cases can be relaxed. — mako ๛ 18:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note NB WP:EDITATAFD says this note should be at the top and also at the end, so please add new material above it and not below. This article has been moved to Rose Ann McGreevy. Pam D 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prothom Kadam Phool. MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Kon Se Alor Swapno Niye (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 10:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prothom Kadam Phool. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 22:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Ami Shri Shri Bhojo Hori Manna (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 10:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool per @MichaelQSchmidt's rationale. Quis separabit? 03:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prothom Kadam Phool. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Ei Shahar Theke Aaro Onek Dure (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 10:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saajan. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Dekha Hai Pehli Baar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 10:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saajan. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Tum Se Milne Ki Tamanna Hain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 10:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saajan. MBisanz ^talk 12:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Mera Dil Bhi Kitna Paagal Hain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir ( talk!) 10:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) reply