The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
A quick Google search returns no results that would brand this company as notable. rayukk | talk 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) -- rayukk | talk 23:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance to an architect who was "probably responsible for the
Alexandra Hotel, Knightsbridge.
rayukk |
talk
23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator- A large amount of content has been added. --
rayukk |
talk
23:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. G11,advertising DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Corporate spam without independent coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Beagel ( talk) 22:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable organization, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo ( talk) 21:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep Needs improving and expanding not deletion. JMHamo will you be nominating The Boat Race next. It is not relevant that there is no British equivalent article. University sport in Ireland is more notable then British equivalent. Djln Djln ( talk) 22:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 23:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NFOOTY, university team football is not notable
JMHamo (
talk)
21:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 06:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, the sources are primary records and genealogical sites. The editor who created the article has admitted that the assertion about "the only father and son to have been awarded the DCM" is unable to be reliably sourced. The editor in question has been asked if they are related to this subject and the other article's subject (ie COI) and have chosen not to respond. This looks like a classic case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL to me. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 20:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Being a filthy rich member of the English peerage does not necessarily make a person notable; many such creatures understanably maintain a very low profile. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment : RETAIN. As well as the above by Darkieboy, Sam Smith's Brewery is a substantial employer throughout the UK. All new, and most of the existing bar staff, excluding managers, are on minimum wage and zero hours contracts. Indeed, must have been at the forefront of this zero hour movement. Such people should not be able to hide behind anonymity. You would not delete other people / companies guilty of such and other immoral practices. He is also of interest to many Sam Smith's customers / fans, he is also one of the country's wealthiest individuals and as such is the subject of interest to those who find Rich Lists etc. interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6 Cylinders And Overdrive ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No sources, not notable. JDDJS ( talk) 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Noting that the sole "Keep" vote, while removing an inappropriate source, did not advance a policy based reason to keep the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This article about an Indian television channel abysmally fails WP:GNG. The three "sources" provided are really one press release repeated by various low-qualiy online outlets. Brianhe ( talk) 09:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 06:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm unable to find reliable sources to show it meets the GNG — Rod talk 16:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I'm missing something. Not one of the existing citations appears to mention the subject. The last two of which are simply a blog. Searches turned up zero on any of the engines. Onel5969 TT me 02:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Searches do not turn up zero. There are different spellings of his name, such as Sheikh Qusay Abu S’id. Blogs are not disreputable on the Arabic web as they are on the English web. Several notable scholars working in Islamic Studies in the West are students of Sayyid Quṣayy, who is well known in Iraq (try putting his name into a search engine in Arabic). If you search the websites that constitute the references in notes 6 and 7 (using Sayyid Quṣayy and Sheikh Qusay respectively), you will see that two such scholars derive their scholastic credentials from him. The entry will be expanded and better referenced when time allows. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahn-ı seman 1240 ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Şahn-ı seman 1240 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and is the article's creator. Onel5969 TT me 22:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Could you define "notability" in that case? The normative lexical sense is "worthy of attention, or notice; remarkable". According to the website that forms the references for notes 2 and 6, Sayyid Quṣayy is "one of the rare inheritors of the later Ottoman curriculum in its fullness." Now, rareness is a synonym of remarkableness, as any thesaurus will tell you. Incidentally that website, iequran.com, in one of the most major web and print scholarly encyclopedias of the Qur'an. Moreover, as it says in the entry, this scholar is one of the rare preservers of branches of knowledge that are almost extinct, such as astrolabe and traditional Islamic astronomy. Yes, there is no reference included for this, but if all the information in English wikipedia articles was also available elsewhere, there wouldn't be much to distinguish it, would there? Wikipedia also performs the function of providing information that is not entirely easy to find on the internet, surely? Moreover, wikipedia editors must be context-sensitive. Masters of traditional Islamic sciences are not very common, and so I think that having prominent students clearly demonstrates notability. It is not like being a high-school teacher who just happens to have prominent students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahn-ı seman 1240 ( talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, go ahead and delete the entry. It's rather disconcerting just how much things are geared toward rewarding and celebrating pronouncements that a page should be deleted, based on very scanty evidence and superficial "research". There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere who would find calls to delete this page laughable if not offensive, but the last poster "can't find him on GBooks and GNews". Better delete the page then. Congrats for the truly remarkable scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahn-ı seman 1240 ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable ad agency. No real sources; no real claims to fame, either. Calton | Talk 11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass WP:GNG, and currently simply a promo piece. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Overall consensus is to Keep, The sources kindly provided by Cunnard meet GNG so wrapping it up as Keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was only this and this. This has also existed since August 2006 with not much better change and actually simply more unhelpful changes. Pinging past users David Haslam, Just Chilling, DarkAudit, and Benzband and also users interested with this subject StAnselm, Johnpacklambert, The Cross Bearer and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The article notes:
Several other North Carolina churches offered Walk Thru programs this fall, including First Christian Church in Kernersville and Pinedale Christian Church in Winston-Salem.
Walk Thru the Bible Ministries offers programs on the New Testament, marriage, managing finances and general Bible study. The Old Testament course is the most popular because many people struggle to memorize its vast group of characters and events, said Kevin Keene, a Walk Thru Ministries spokesman.
The article notes:
A Walk Thru the Bible is a history class without note taking.
It's a global excursion in one day and a geography lesson with ancient rivers and valleys mapped out in church gyms.
Most of all, according to its proponents, the seminars are memory retention exercises that imprint some 77 biblical events on the minds of participants.
...
Hall explained that Bible scholar Bruce Wilkinson started the education ministry 15 years ago to provide an effective, entertaining and interactive way to teach the Old and New Testaments.
As many as 3,000 seminars will be held next year in more than 20 countries, including Russia, said Wilkinson.
The article notes:
[Jim] Hall's organization [Walk Thru the Bible Ministries], popular in local churches for its Walk Thru the Old and New Testament seminars, is bringing a new product to Lancaster - a seminar called "A Biblical Portrait of Marriage."
...
As in its other seminars, Walk Thru the Bible's new program will provide a workbook for participants, and its presentation methods will include group interaction.
Wilkinson founded Walk Thru the Bible Ministries in 1976. Headquartered in Atlanta and Fort Mill, S.C., the ministry has earned wide recognition for its lively seminars that help people learn the names, places and events of Bible times.
On Saturday, Walk Thru's 10,000th seminar will be given in Bethlehem.
Wilkinson's organization publishes a family of devotional magazines, and he has edited numerous publications.
The article notes:
The article also provides detailed coverage of the organization's history, products, and reach:Late on a Saturday afternoon at St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church, men, women and children stood and, while wiping their lips, flailing their arms and pointing this way and that, recited the major events of the New Testament in one minute and 51 seconds. In the `Walk Thru the Bible' system developed by Bruce Wilkinson, participants learn a code word and a hand motion for each major event in the New Testament. This sign is the symbol for tabernacle.
...
Wilkinson developed the seminars "by accident" while working on a master's thesis as a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary.
...
His fellow students enjoyed the word and motion presentation, and the program's popularity grew. When the invitations proved more than he could handle on his own, he trained his friends to conduct the seminars. As students graduated, they booked seminars for the churches they pastored and word spread further.
When Wilkinson himself graduated from the seminary in 1974, he took a teaching position at the non-denominational Multnomah School of the Bible in Portland, Ore., and continued the seminars, mostly as a hobby.
By 1976, however, Wilkinson, still in his 20s, realized he had a full-time ministry in the seminars. He and four other men resigned their full-time jobs and formed the nucleus of the organization.
In 1978, the organization moved to Atlanta.
He has been pleased with the city. "Atlanta turned out to be just what we hoped it would be."
With an annual budget in excess of $7 million, 70 instructors in the United States and 20 overseas, the ministry has reached some 730,000 people in churches from Assembly of God to United Methodist.
New seminars are on the drawing board. Three magazines for adults are being published and a fourth, especially for teenagers, is on the launching pad.
The article notes:
Bruce Wilkinson, the Atlanta author catapulted to international best-sellerdom by "The Prayer of Jabez," is leaving Walk Thru the Bible, the ministry he founded 25 years ago to teach laymen the Scriptures.
...Walk Thru the Bible claims to be the world's largest Bible teaching seminar organization. The nondenominational ministry was host to more than 2,500 seminars last year in the United States, helping the people in the pews memorize the structure of the Bible through word association and gestures. Its international division reaches more than 50 countries.
The ministry also produces books, devotional publications and magazines.
The article notes:
"Anyone with the desire can master the major events, the people, the places of the entire Old Testament in just one day," Bruce H. Wilkinson, founder and president, said in a promotional video.
Wilkinson was a Bible teacher in Portland, Ore., when he began developing his Old Testament seminar in 1972. Walk Thru the Bible was incorporated in 1976 and now is taught in more than two dozen languages.
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable NGO. Most of these sources are mentions from affiliated organisations, and the rest barely even amounts to local media coverage. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Not notable in his own right: there are zero cited sources about him personally, just a bunch of quotes from him in his professional role. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE, due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing on any of the search engines except for a few brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether this person meets WP:NACTOR, with the point about whether "multiple" means "two" or "three" seeming to be a sticking point. Whether one of her current projects will turn into a notable production is unknown at this point, perhaps when they have been released we can revisit this discussion. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This nomination echoes what I said with my now-removed PROD as I initially considered AfD but it looked like an easy PROD but it's now been removed, here we are at AfD. Pinging interested subject users MichaelQSchmidt, Rms125a@hotmail.com, Wgolf and Davey2010 and I think Piotrus may also be interested as it seems this is the same IP who has removed countless other PRODs. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 00:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC notability. The few reliable sources merely make passing mention of the subject. - Mr X 21:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No evidence of notablity. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 11:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. WP:SNOW. Well done Blofeld and SusunW for the improvements.
I'm not sure of what to do with this one. References could probably be found, but they'd probably be mere notices or promotional--but it would depend how you looked on it. I can see a possible point for including all hotels of this level, or for merging them all in chains. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus seems clear enough DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Not a notable person. The parochial sources are not discussing her as a person and so this article should be deleted. jps ( talk) 17:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. None of the refs currently in the article relate to the company concerned. In a quick search of the web, I couldn't find much coverage in secondary sources. There's a few remarks in passing, as a result of the company's sponsorship of 7EmiratesRun, and a quote from chairman Siddharth Balachandran relating to a budget announcement. None of that satisfies the guidelines set out at WP:CORP. └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 16:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Some notability is existing, but it's very shaky Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 22:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:SOLDIER. The Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography entry linked at the bottom is primarily about his father. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. sufficient consensus to Keep ( non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There isn't a single acceptable entry on this so-called dab page. Three are partial matches, and the remaining two aren't even that. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is this is a well covered and notable event. ( non-admin closure) Jbh Talk 11:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Article fails WP:Notability and also contains several factual errors. Wikipedia is not a political forum of current marginal events. Norden1990 ( talk) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tripped-syrian-refugee-starts-spain-football-life-200422722--sow.html
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
A very weakly sourced, somewhat promotional biographical stub of a living person ( WP:BLP). None of the sources we have are sufficiently reliable or sufficiently address this subject to attest to his importance in the fringe world of natropathy.
While we have no policy against articles about fringe topics, including individuals who promote fringe topics we do not have a different standard for fringe biographies than normal biographies. We require that a biographical article should have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As yet I have been unable to identify a single WP:RS for this subject.
Also, we should be wary of linking to sources which make medical claims possibly in violation of WP:MEDRS. These are not suitable for establishing a subject's notability. Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm completely disregarding the walls of text about the mess this discussion has become because of reverts and edit wars and what not, and am focusing only on the views expressed about the article that was actually nominated, List of British engineers and their patents. Consensus is that we don't need that one. Any remaining confusion in other article histories, can, I hope, be sorted out editorially. Sandstein 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Article prodded, but prod removed by Andrew Davidson who doesn't seem to have read or understood the purpose of the page and the reason for the prod, so here goes:
"A list of railway engineers (other engineers seem to be suspiciously absent from this page) who have one or more patents, which is not a claim to notability. This page may be useful for a British train project (do we have such a thing), as a list of potential article subjects (some of them are probably notable), but is not a valid Wikipedia article in itself (people with patents but without Wikipedia article is way too self-referential)"
Changing the title (which Andrew Davidson already did), and scope, and contents of the page until it no longer resembles the page that was prodded is of course a possibility, but then the much more logical course of action is to delete the page that was, and to create a new page, with the new title and contents. I see a WP:PRESERVE link looming at the horizon, but when there is little to nothing worthwhile to preserve, it's better to just start over. Fram ( talk) 07:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Already, situation resolved, AfD can restart. We now have an article List of British engineers which is not up for deletion, and an article List of British engineers and their patents which is the subject of this AfD. Can we now proceed without further disruption please? Fram ( talk) 08:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Anthony Appleyard: I think you by mistake removed a very large part of this discussion when you replied (you probably replied to the edit where you were pinged, not to the then current version of this debate). While most of it can probably safely be hatted as more heat than light / repetition of the same arguments over and over again (and I mean from both sides), I don't think it was your intention to delete all of it without even noting it here. Fram ( talk) 15:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted text replaced by Andrew D. ( talk) 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC):-
Deleted text replaced by Biscuittin ( talk) 23:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC):-
I see a lot of heat here, but I'm still not understanding why everyone is unsatisfied by the suggesting of deleting one page and keeping the other. Why does it matter? Haven't you better things to do than personally attack each other like this? JMWt ( talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a summary of where we are now at the start of day 2. We now have three pages:
Page 1 has Biscuittin's original text. Page 2 has that text plus my improvements in its history but reverted by Fram. Page 3 has the improvements without the original text. Biscuittin and myself seem to want page 2 or something similar. Fram and JMWt seem to want page 3 – an article without a body. My full position is that I want all this put back together as one, before the splitting started. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We still have three pages:
As they are all under discussion together (effectively a group nom.), I have made sure that all pages have the AFD banner and have restored the title of the AFD to its original, reverting Fram's move. Anyone interested in list of British engineers, under whatever title, should thus be prompted to join the discussion and help us determine consensus. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Based on the striking of the only delete vote, and the withdrawal of the nomination. I would say projectify, but am unsure if that is a valid choice. Per SK#1. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Pure WP:OR - more specifically , WP:SYNTH. Names have been cobbled together from ten sources, on a basis for which no justification is given, some of them with pretensions to be works of musical scholarship, others just general encyclopaedias, history books or other website lists. One of the website lists is now a dead link. Some of the sources date from the 1980s and 1990s and none is more recent than 2002 (the Rough Guide to Opera, not a reliable academic source). There is no attempt to define what is meant by a 'major opera composer' , indeed it is not clear whether the core topic is 'major opera' or 'major composers'. Gobbets of musical history are included here and there - most of these are from two sources, the Viking Opera Guide which dates from the 1990s, and the Thames and Hudson book of the 1980s, Opera: A Concise History. Neither of these have great pretensions today to being leading or notable sources. The inclusion in the list of minor composers such as Smyth, Pfitzner, Pepusch and Schreker gives them inappropriate prominence. In short, an unencylopaedic merger of information glued together from randomly assembled sources. I started trying to clean it up but then realized that it just wasn't worth it. Smerus ( talk) 12:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete: I feel the entire concept of the article needs to be rethought. What does "a major opera composer" mean and by what criteria is this determined? Number of operas composed? Number of operas recorded? Number of operas performed? These are all variable criteria. If one wants to be objective, one could use "number of operas composed" (an answer to the question "who composed the most operas?") though I'm sure there would be a number of obscure composers, while a few significant composers wouldn't make the list. If one were to use criteria of number of operas performed or recorded, that information is difficult to ascertain (does one include only commercial recordings?) What about composers who composed prodigiously but of which there are no recordings? (generally I feel one should not use recordings as a basis for anything other than recordings). I guess I feel the idea of an article on "opera composers" is fallacious and that the content should be rolled into the article
opera. -
kosboot (
talk)
14:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey you guys, you all know me, amenability is my middle name! (Silent at the back there!) So what say we projectify the article as suggested by VdT (with whom I fully agree), I withdraw the AfD, and we discuss at WikiProject Opera how, if at all, the topic can be treated so as to be consistent with the present standards of Wikipedia?-- Smerus ( talk) 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
See previous deletion discussions on what is essentially the same article: first debate and second debate. There is no clear inclusion criteria for this article. For example, why do some clubs have their seasons from a few years ago whereas the majority have the attendance for the most recent season? Fails WP:NOTSTATS and appears to be WP:OR. Spiderone 12:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
A wildly overdetailed and almost entirely unsourced article which is highly likely to be autobiographical (the single-subject author Twistedg seems to match Ayass's nickname, 'Twisted Genius'). Online I can only see the very briefest mentions, certainly nothing to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Clean-up tag has been on the article for almost 7 years with no signs of improvement. Time for the article to go! Sionk ( talk) 11:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
fails WP:MUSICBIO — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 09:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Additional sourcing indicates it now passes notability criteria. Does not appear to meet any of the speedy keep criteria, however. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Certainly questionably notable and improvable as there's hardly much here and the best my searches found was only this (rbcasting.com) and there's nothing else to suggest this is keepable. It's also not surprising this hasn't changed much since starting in February 2012. Notifying PRODder AndrewWTaylor and familiar subject AfDers Onel5969 and MichaelQSchmidt who may have some insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that he meets WP:NACTOR. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Questionably notable and improvable as he only seems to have been best known for some work such as 11 episodes of One Tree Hill, Beyond the Break and Powers Rangers and the best links I found was only this, this, this and this (several of these links are also simply gossip such as for being cast as a likely Twilight film member). At best, this would be a weak keepable article and it may also be best to simply redirect to perhaps Beyond the Break (his best known and longest work?). Notifying past users Logical Fuzz, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Flyer22 Reborn and also familiar subject AfDers Onel5969, TheRedPenofDoom, Rms125a@hotmail.com and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly questionably notable and improvable CEO of a company (for which I'm separately nominating the article for, both companies in fact) as the best links I found were this and this. Dennis Brown only simply protected the article from persistent vandalism but I'm not sure if he would've had any input and Boleyn also only made two edits but I know she often comments at these articles regardless but there simply aren't any other outstandingly pingable users and lastly I know DGG will want to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 02:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Questionably notable and improvable biography as the best my extended searches found was only this (one of the searches at the listed news sources), this, this and this. It's worth noting this has actually existed since June 2006 with hardly much notability and improvement and I think that's because he only seems be somewhat locally known. Notifying past users Fylbecatulous, StAnselm, PhilKnight, Fram and lastly African user Wikicology who may have some insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Run of the mill news anchor FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Thanks to the sourcing done by Megalibrarygirl. WP:BEFORE is mandatory. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 02:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Being quoted in passing on a bunch of Christian websites and speaking at a conference doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The consensus is to userfy, which I'll do if the creator, or anybody else, tells me that they do want the content to work on. Sandstein 20:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been trying to think of a way that this could be WP:PRESERVEd in some way. However it's so fundamentally a case of WP:NOTESSAY and I think WP:BLOWITUP is the only recourse, with the option of WP:USERFYing it for the article creator. What do others think? Am I being too harsh in calling for deletion? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
no evidence of notability. fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Not notable as WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing she did (attending this and that school or serving as volunteer in relief efforts) is notable on her own merits. And it's very obvious that this girl just wants to lead a normal life despite famous parents, and China no longer practices monarchy in any sense. Obama's girls also don't get their own pages. Timmyshin ( talk) 09:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Prodego under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 09:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet WP:GNG for me, other than his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel's show. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Redirect as this is the most sensible option, as discussed by voters and the editor who boldly redirected before it was reversed (NAC) Legacypac ( talk) 09:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is for a subunit of Marriott in India. There's nothing that distinguishes this unit that would require a standalone article. A redirect to the main article was undone by another editor as the target had little to say about the Indian unit. Whpq ( talk) 03:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The problem is the usual: the company is a subject of a number of in-passing mentions, but there is no in-depth coverage outside press releases. This business exists, is doing well, and is even more socially responsible than on average - but nothing makes it encyclopedic. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since April 2008. Article relies on a single source that is a broken link without an archived page, and even if it did exist, it probably did not make the telenovela meet WP:GNG. An internet search could not ascertain sources of more reliability, even searching for its Spanish title. Perhaps someone fluent in Spanish would be able to find sources, but I haven't found anything. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sources have been provided and judging by the sources I'd say notability is there by a bare minimum, ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced article that clearly does not meet WP:GNG. An internet search only reveals database entries and virtually nothing else. None of the information in "Production" or "Filming Locations" is verifiable at all. Created by a WP:SPI in relation to the film and its actors, probably someone who was involved in its production. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 02:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced, promotional corp. — Eat me, I'm an azuki ( talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. The nomination was based upon vandalism to the article, which was reverted shortly after nomination. ( non-admin closure) — Jkudlick t c s 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I am curious. The article starts as "Gu Gu (Chinese: 古古) is a male butt hole named my Niggy at the Beijing Zoo," Galaxy Kid ( talk) 13:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks as failing WP:PEOPLE. Most information comes from blogs ... Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 21:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Unremarkable Indian television channel, one source mentions its launch, another is about one episode, the other is not independent: fails WP:GNG. Brianhe ( talk) 13:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 02:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:OR. This is not an existing, standardized data format, but an attempt to create one. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 01:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 17:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a notable actor. Most notable role wasn't even on all real TV show. Previous AFD resulted in redirecting to the show, but I find that to be an unnecessary redirect. JDDJS ( talk) 17:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. An i internet search brought up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors and articles about a horse with the same name. The article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and most of it appears to be WP:OR, as results for information such as "Ollie Fliptrik's Dandy Club" could not be found either. Fails WP:NCHAR. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 22:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
A quick Google search returns no results that would brand this company as notable. rayukk | talk 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) -- rayukk | talk 23:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance to an architect who was "probably responsible for the
Alexandra Hotel, Knightsbridge.
rayukk |
talk
23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator- A large amount of content has been added. --
rayukk |
talk
23:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. G11,advertising DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Corporate spam without independent coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Beagel ( talk) 22:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable organization, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo ( talk) 21:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep Needs improving and expanding not deletion. JMHamo will you be nominating The Boat Race next. It is not relevant that there is no British equivalent article. University sport in Ireland is more notable then British equivalent. Djln Djln ( talk) 22:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 23:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NFOOTY, university team football is not notable
JMHamo (
talk)
21:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 06:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, the sources are primary records and genealogical sites. The editor who created the article has admitted that the assertion about "the only father and son to have been awarded the DCM" is unable to be reliably sourced. The editor in question has been asked if they are related to this subject and the other article's subject (ie COI) and have chosen not to respond. This looks like a classic case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL to me. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 20:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Being a filthy rich member of the English peerage does not necessarily make a person notable; many such creatures understanably maintain a very low profile. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment : RETAIN. As well as the above by Darkieboy, Sam Smith's Brewery is a substantial employer throughout the UK. All new, and most of the existing bar staff, excluding managers, are on minimum wage and zero hours contracts. Indeed, must have been at the forefront of this zero hour movement. Such people should not be able to hide behind anonymity. You would not delete other people / companies guilty of such and other immoral practices. He is also of interest to many Sam Smith's customers / fans, he is also one of the country's wealthiest individuals and as such is the subject of interest to those who find Rich Lists etc. interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6 Cylinders And Overdrive ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No sources, not notable. JDDJS ( talk) 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Noting that the sole "Keep" vote, while removing an inappropriate source, did not advance a policy based reason to keep the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This article about an Indian television channel abysmally fails WP:GNG. The three "sources" provided are really one press release repeated by various low-qualiy online outlets. Brianhe ( talk) 09:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 06:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm unable to find reliable sources to show it meets the GNG — Rod talk 16:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I'm missing something. Not one of the existing citations appears to mention the subject. The last two of which are simply a blog. Searches turned up zero on any of the engines. Onel5969 TT me 02:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Searches do not turn up zero. There are different spellings of his name, such as Sheikh Qusay Abu S’id. Blogs are not disreputable on the Arabic web as they are on the English web. Several notable scholars working in Islamic Studies in the West are students of Sayyid Quṣayy, who is well known in Iraq (try putting his name into a search engine in Arabic). If you search the websites that constitute the references in notes 6 and 7 (using Sayyid Quṣayy and Sheikh Qusay respectively), you will see that two such scholars derive their scholastic credentials from him. The entry will be expanded and better referenced when time allows. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahn-ı seman 1240 ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Şahn-ı seman 1240 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and is the article's creator. Onel5969 TT me 22:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Could you define "notability" in that case? The normative lexical sense is "worthy of attention, or notice; remarkable". According to the website that forms the references for notes 2 and 6, Sayyid Quṣayy is "one of the rare inheritors of the later Ottoman curriculum in its fullness." Now, rareness is a synonym of remarkableness, as any thesaurus will tell you. Incidentally that website, iequran.com, in one of the most major web and print scholarly encyclopedias of the Qur'an. Moreover, as it says in the entry, this scholar is one of the rare preservers of branches of knowledge that are almost extinct, such as astrolabe and traditional Islamic astronomy. Yes, there is no reference included for this, but if all the information in English wikipedia articles was also available elsewhere, there wouldn't be much to distinguish it, would there? Wikipedia also performs the function of providing information that is not entirely easy to find on the internet, surely? Moreover, wikipedia editors must be context-sensitive. Masters of traditional Islamic sciences are not very common, and so I think that having prominent students clearly demonstrates notability. It is not like being a high-school teacher who just happens to have prominent students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahn-ı seman 1240 ( talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, go ahead and delete the entry. It's rather disconcerting just how much things are geared toward rewarding and celebrating pronouncements that a page should be deleted, based on very scanty evidence and superficial "research". There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and elsewhere who would find calls to delete this page laughable if not offensive, but the last poster "can't find him on GBooks and GNews". Better delete the page then. Congrats for the truly remarkable scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahn-ı seman 1240 ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable ad agency. No real sources; no real claims to fame, either. Calton | Talk 11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass WP:GNG, and currently simply a promo piece. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Overall consensus is to Keep, The sources kindly provided by Cunnard meet GNG so wrapping it up as Keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was only this and this. This has also existed since August 2006 with not much better change and actually simply more unhelpful changes. Pinging past users David Haslam, Just Chilling, DarkAudit, and Benzband and also users interested with this subject StAnselm, Johnpacklambert, The Cross Bearer and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The article notes:
Several other North Carolina churches offered Walk Thru programs this fall, including First Christian Church in Kernersville and Pinedale Christian Church in Winston-Salem.
Walk Thru the Bible Ministries offers programs on the New Testament, marriage, managing finances and general Bible study. The Old Testament course is the most popular because many people struggle to memorize its vast group of characters and events, said Kevin Keene, a Walk Thru Ministries spokesman.
The article notes:
A Walk Thru the Bible is a history class without note taking.
It's a global excursion in one day and a geography lesson with ancient rivers and valleys mapped out in church gyms.
Most of all, according to its proponents, the seminars are memory retention exercises that imprint some 77 biblical events on the minds of participants.
...
Hall explained that Bible scholar Bruce Wilkinson started the education ministry 15 years ago to provide an effective, entertaining and interactive way to teach the Old and New Testaments.
As many as 3,000 seminars will be held next year in more than 20 countries, including Russia, said Wilkinson.
The article notes:
[Jim] Hall's organization [Walk Thru the Bible Ministries], popular in local churches for its Walk Thru the Old and New Testament seminars, is bringing a new product to Lancaster - a seminar called "A Biblical Portrait of Marriage."
...
As in its other seminars, Walk Thru the Bible's new program will provide a workbook for participants, and its presentation methods will include group interaction.
Wilkinson founded Walk Thru the Bible Ministries in 1976. Headquartered in Atlanta and Fort Mill, S.C., the ministry has earned wide recognition for its lively seminars that help people learn the names, places and events of Bible times.
On Saturday, Walk Thru's 10,000th seminar will be given in Bethlehem.
Wilkinson's organization publishes a family of devotional magazines, and he has edited numerous publications.
The article notes:
The article also provides detailed coverage of the organization's history, products, and reach:Late on a Saturday afternoon at St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church, men, women and children stood and, while wiping their lips, flailing their arms and pointing this way and that, recited the major events of the New Testament in one minute and 51 seconds. In the `Walk Thru the Bible' system developed by Bruce Wilkinson, participants learn a code word and a hand motion for each major event in the New Testament. This sign is the symbol for tabernacle.
...
Wilkinson developed the seminars "by accident" while working on a master's thesis as a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary.
...
His fellow students enjoyed the word and motion presentation, and the program's popularity grew. When the invitations proved more than he could handle on his own, he trained his friends to conduct the seminars. As students graduated, they booked seminars for the churches they pastored and word spread further.
When Wilkinson himself graduated from the seminary in 1974, he took a teaching position at the non-denominational Multnomah School of the Bible in Portland, Ore., and continued the seminars, mostly as a hobby.
By 1976, however, Wilkinson, still in his 20s, realized he had a full-time ministry in the seminars. He and four other men resigned their full-time jobs and formed the nucleus of the organization.
In 1978, the organization moved to Atlanta.
He has been pleased with the city. "Atlanta turned out to be just what we hoped it would be."
With an annual budget in excess of $7 million, 70 instructors in the United States and 20 overseas, the ministry has reached some 730,000 people in churches from Assembly of God to United Methodist.
New seminars are on the drawing board. Three magazines for adults are being published and a fourth, especially for teenagers, is on the launching pad.
The article notes:
Bruce Wilkinson, the Atlanta author catapulted to international best-sellerdom by "The Prayer of Jabez," is leaving Walk Thru the Bible, the ministry he founded 25 years ago to teach laymen the Scriptures.
...Walk Thru the Bible claims to be the world's largest Bible teaching seminar organization. The nondenominational ministry was host to more than 2,500 seminars last year in the United States, helping the people in the pews memorize the structure of the Bible through word association and gestures. Its international division reaches more than 50 countries.
The ministry also produces books, devotional publications and magazines.
The article notes:
"Anyone with the desire can master the major events, the people, the places of the entire Old Testament in just one day," Bruce H. Wilkinson, founder and president, said in a promotional video.
Wilkinson was a Bible teacher in Portland, Ore., when he began developing his Old Testament seminar in 1972. Walk Thru the Bible was incorporated in 1976 and now is taught in more than two dozen languages.
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable NGO. Most of these sources are mentions from affiliated organisations, and the rest barely even amounts to local media coverage. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Not notable in his own right: there are zero cited sources about him personally, just a bunch of quotes from him in his professional role. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE, due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing on any of the search engines except for a few brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether this person meets WP:NACTOR, with the point about whether "multiple" means "two" or "three" seeming to be a sticking point. Whether one of her current projects will turn into a notable production is unknown at this point, perhaps when they have been released we can revisit this discussion. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This nomination echoes what I said with my now-removed PROD as I initially considered AfD but it looked like an easy PROD but it's now been removed, here we are at AfD. Pinging interested subject users MichaelQSchmidt, Rms125a@hotmail.com, Wgolf and Davey2010 and I think Piotrus may also be interested as it seems this is the same IP who has removed countless other PRODs. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 00:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC notability. The few reliable sources merely make passing mention of the subject. - Mr X 21:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No evidence of notablity. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 11:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Keep. WP:SNOW. Well done Blofeld and SusunW for the improvements.
I'm not sure of what to do with this one. References could probably be found, but they'd probably be mere notices or promotional--but it would depend how you looked on it. I can see a possible point for including all hotels of this level, or for merging them all in chains. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. consensus seems clear enough DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Not a notable person. The parochial sources are not discussing her as a person and so this article should be deleted. jps ( talk) 17:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. None of the refs currently in the article relate to the company concerned. In a quick search of the web, I couldn't find much coverage in secondary sources. There's a few remarks in passing, as a result of the company's sponsorship of 7EmiratesRun, and a quote from chairman Siddharth Balachandran relating to a budget announcement. None of that satisfies the guidelines set out at WP:CORP. └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 16:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Some notability is existing, but it's very shaky Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 22:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:SOLDIER. The Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography entry linked at the bottom is primarily about his father. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. sufficient consensus to Keep ( non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There isn't a single acceptable entry on this so-called dab page. Three are partial matches, and the remaining two aren't even that. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is this is a well covered and notable event. ( non-admin closure) Jbh Talk 11:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Article fails WP:Notability and also contains several factual errors. Wikipedia is not a political forum of current marginal events. Norden1990 ( talk) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tripped-syrian-refugee-starts-spain-football-life-200422722--sow.html
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
A very weakly sourced, somewhat promotional biographical stub of a living person ( WP:BLP). None of the sources we have are sufficiently reliable or sufficiently address this subject to attest to his importance in the fringe world of natropathy.
While we have no policy against articles about fringe topics, including individuals who promote fringe topics we do not have a different standard for fringe biographies than normal biographies. We require that a biographical article should have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As yet I have been unable to identify a single WP:RS for this subject.
Also, we should be wary of linking to sources which make medical claims possibly in violation of WP:MEDRS. These are not suitable for establishing a subject's notability. Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. I'm completely disregarding the walls of text about the mess this discussion has become because of reverts and edit wars and what not, and am focusing only on the views expressed about the article that was actually nominated, List of British engineers and their patents. Consensus is that we don't need that one. Any remaining confusion in other article histories, can, I hope, be sorted out editorially. Sandstein 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Article prodded, but prod removed by Andrew Davidson who doesn't seem to have read or understood the purpose of the page and the reason for the prod, so here goes:
"A list of railway engineers (other engineers seem to be suspiciously absent from this page) who have one or more patents, which is not a claim to notability. This page may be useful for a British train project (do we have such a thing), as a list of potential article subjects (some of them are probably notable), but is not a valid Wikipedia article in itself (people with patents but without Wikipedia article is way too self-referential)"
Changing the title (which Andrew Davidson already did), and scope, and contents of the page until it no longer resembles the page that was prodded is of course a possibility, but then the much more logical course of action is to delete the page that was, and to create a new page, with the new title and contents. I see a WP:PRESERVE link looming at the horizon, but when there is little to nothing worthwhile to preserve, it's better to just start over. Fram ( talk) 07:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Already, situation resolved, AfD can restart. We now have an article List of British engineers which is not up for deletion, and an article List of British engineers and their patents which is the subject of this AfD. Can we now proceed without further disruption please? Fram ( talk) 08:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Anthony Appleyard: I think you by mistake removed a very large part of this discussion when you replied (you probably replied to the edit where you were pinged, not to the then current version of this debate). While most of it can probably safely be hatted as more heat than light / repetition of the same arguments over and over again (and I mean from both sides), I don't think it was your intention to delete all of it without even noting it here. Fram ( talk) 15:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted text replaced by Andrew D. ( talk) 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC):-
Deleted text replaced by Biscuittin ( talk) 23:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC):-
I see a lot of heat here, but I'm still not understanding why everyone is unsatisfied by the suggesting of deleting one page and keeping the other. Why does it matter? Haven't you better things to do than personally attack each other like this? JMWt ( talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a summary of where we are now at the start of day 2. We now have three pages:
Page 1 has Biscuittin's original text. Page 2 has that text plus my improvements in its history but reverted by Fram. Page 3 has the improvements without the original text. Biscuittin and myself seem to want page 2 or something similar. Fram and JMWt seem to want page 3 – an article without a body. My full position is that I want all this put back together as one, before the splitting started. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We still have three pages:
As they are all under discussion together (effectively a group nom.), I have made sure that all pages have the AFD banner and have restored the title of the AFD to its original, reverting Fram's move. Anyone interested in list of British engineers, under whatever title, should thus be prompted to join the discussion and help us determine consensus. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Based on the striking of the only delete vote, and the withdrawal of the nomination. I would say projectify, but am unsure if that is a valid choice. Per SK#1. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Pure WP:OR - more specifically , WP:SYNTH. Names have been cobbled together from ten sources, on a basis for which no justification is given, some of them with pretensions to be works of musical scholarship, others just general encyclopaedias, history books or other website lists. One of the website lists is now a dead link. Some of the sources date from the 1980s and 1990s and none is more recent than 2002 (the Rough Guide to Opera, not a reliable academic source). There is no attempt to define what is meant by a 'major opera composer' , indeed it is not clear whether the core topic is 'major opera' or 'major composers'. Gobbets of musical history are included here and there - most of these are from two sources, the Viking Opera Guide which dates from the 1990s, and the Thames and Hudson book of the 1980s, Opera: A Concise History. Neither of these have great pretensions today to being leading or notable sources. The inclusion in the list of minor composers such as Smyth, Pfitzner, Pepusch and Schreker gives them inappropriate prominence. In short, an unencylopaedic merger of information glued together from randomly assembled sources. I started trying to clean it up but then realized that it just wasn't worth it. Smerus ( talk) 12:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete: I feel the entire concept of the article needs to be rethought. What does "a major opera composer" mean and by what criteria is this determined? Number of operas composed? Number of operas recorded? Number of operas performed? These are all variable criteria. If one wants to be objective, one could use "number of operas composed" (an answer to the question "who composed the most operas?") though I'm sure there would be a number of obscure composers, while a few significant composers wouldn't make the list. If one were to use criteria of number of operas performed or recorded, that information is difficult to ascertain (does one include only commercial recordings?) What about composers who composed prodigiously but of which there are no recordings? (generally I feel one should not use recordings as a basis for anything other than recordings). I guess I feel the idea of an article on "opera composers" is fallacious and that the content should be rolled into the article
opera. -
kosboot (
talk)
14:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey you guys, you all know me, amenability is my middle name! (Silent at the back there!) So what say we projectify the article as suggested by VdT (with whom I fully agree), I withdraw the AfD, and we discuss at WikiProject Opera how, if at all, the topic can be treated so as to be consistent with the present standards of Wikipedia?-- Smerus ( talk) 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
See previous deletion discussions on what is essentially the same article: first debate and second debate. There is no clear inclusion criteria for this article. For example, why do some clubs have their seasons from a few years ago whereas the majority have the attendance for the most recent season? Fails WP:NOTSTATS and appears to be WP:OR. Spiderone 12:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
A wildly overdetailed and almost entirely unsourced article which is highly likely to be autobiographical (the single-subject author Twistedg seems to match Ayass's nickname, 'Twisted Genius'). Online I can only see the very briefest mentions, certainly nothing to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Clean-up tag has been on the article for almost 7 years with no signs of improvement. Time for the article to go! Sionk ( talk) 11:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
fails WP:MUSICBIO — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 09:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Additional sourcing indicates it now passes notability criteria. Does not appear to meet any of the speedy keep criteria, however. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Certainly questionably notable and improvable as there's hardly much here and the best my searches found was only this (rbcasting.com) and there's nothing else to suggest this is keepable. It's also not surprising this hasn't changed much since starting in February 2012. Notifying PRODder AndrewWTaylor and familiar subject AfDers Onel5969 and MichaelQSchmidt who may have some insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus is that he meets WP:NACTOR. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Questionably notable and improvable as he only seems to have been best known for some work such as 11 episodes of One Tree Hill, Beyond the Break and Powers Rangers and the best links I found was only this, this, this and this (several of these links are also simply gossip such as for being cast as a likely Twilight film member). At best, this would be a weak keepable article and it may also be best to simply redirect to perhaps Beyond the Break (his best known and longest work?). Notifying past users Logical Fuzz, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Flyer22 Reborn and also familiar subject AfDers Onel5969, TheRedPenofDoom, Rms125a@hotmail.com and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly questionably notable and improvable CEO of a company (for which I'm separately nominating the article for, both companies in fact) as the best links I found were this and this. Dennis Brown only simply protected the article from persistent vandalism but I'm not sure if he would've had any input and Boleyn also only made two edits but I know she often comments at these articles regardless but there simply aren't any other outstandingly pingable users and lastly I know DGG will want to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 02:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Questionably notable and improvable biography as the best my extended searches found was only this (one of the searches at the listed news sources), this, this and this. It's worth noting this has actually existed since June 2006 with hardly much notability and improvement and I think that's because he only seems be somewhat locally known. Notifying past users Fylbecatulous, StAnselm, PhilKnight, Fram and lastly African user Wikicology who may have some insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails GNG. Run of the mill news anchor FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Thanks to the sourcing done by Megalibrarygirl. WP:BEFORE is mandatory. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 02:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Being quoted in passing on a bunch of Christian websites and speaking at a conference doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The consensus is to userfy, which I'll do if the creator, or anybody else, tells me that they do want the content to work on. Sandstein 20:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been trying to think of a way that this could be WP:PRESERVEd in some way. However it's so fundamentally a case of WP:NOTESSAY and I think WP:BLOWITUP is the only recourse, with the option of WP:USERFYing it for the article creator. What do others think? Am I being too harsh in calling for deletion? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
no evidence of notability. fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Not notable as WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing she did (attending this and that school or serving as volunteer in relief efforts) is notable on her own merits. And it's very obvious that this girl just wants to lead a normal life despite famous parents, and China no longer practices monarchy in any sense. Obama's girls also don't get their own pages. Timmyshin ( talk) 09:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Prodego under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 09:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet WP:GNG for me, other than his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel's show. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Redirect as this is the most sensible option, as discussed by voters and the editor who boldly redirected before it was reversed (NAC) Legacypac ( talk) 09:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is for a subunit of Marriott in India. There's nothing that distinguishes this unit that would require a standalone article. A redirect to the main article was undone by another editor as the target had little to say about the Indian unit. Whpq ( talk) 03:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The problem is the usual: the company is a subject of a number of in-passing mentions, but there is no in-depth coverage outside press releases. This business exists, is doing well, and is even more socially responsible than on average - but nothing makes it encyclopedic. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since April 2008. Article relies on a single source that is a broken link without an archived page, and even if it did exist, it probably did not make the telenovela meet WP:GNG. An internet search could not ascertain sources of more reliability, even searching for its Spanish title. Perhaps someone fluent in Spanish would be able to find sources, but I haven't found anything. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sources have been provided and judging by the sources I'd say notability is there by a bare minimum, ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced article that clearly does not meet WP:GNG. An internet search only reveals database entries and virtually nothing else. None of the information in "Production" or "Filming Locations" is verifiable at all. Created by a WP:SPI in relation to the film and its actors, probably someone who was involved in its production. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 02:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced, promotional corp. — Eat me, I'm an azuki ( talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. The nomination was based upon vandalism to the article, which was reverted shortly after nomination. ( non-admin closure) — Jkudlick t c s 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I am curious. The article starts as "Gu Gu (Chinese: 古古) is a male butt hole named my Niggy at the Beijing Zoo," Galaxy Kid ( talk) 13:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks as failing WP:PEOPLE. Most information comes from blogs ... Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 21:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Unremarkable Indian television channel, one source mentions its launch, another is about one episode, the other is not independent: fails WP:GNG. Brianhe ( talk) 13:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 02:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:OR. This is not an existing, standardized data format, but an attempt to create one. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 01:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:TOOSOON — OluwaCurtis »» ( talk to me) 17:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a notable actor. Most notable role wasn't even on all real TV show. Previous AFD resulted in redirecting to the show, but I find that to be an unnecessary redirect. JDDJS ( talk) 17:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. An i internet search brought up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors and articles about a horse with the same name. The article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and most of it appears to be WP:OR, as results for information such as "Ollie Fliptrik's Dandy Club" could not be found either. Fails WP:NCHAR. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 22:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)