From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 23:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Alek Skarlatos

Alek Skarlatos (  | 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 young man is one of the three US citizens involved in disarming the gunman during 2015 Thalys train attack, therefore newspaper coverage of him is immense. However is this a WP:BLP1E? The only content in this article which is not in the main event page, is that apparently he is now going to be appearing on Dancing with the Stars. Does this justify the article? Pincrete ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as article creator. Skarlatos was initially notable for one event, but not anymore. He became publicly known for stopping the terrorist attack, but is know notable for being a foreign recipient of the Legion of Honour. He will also be on Dancing with the Stars. He does not satisfy BLP1E because quote on quote " We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Skarlatos is very unlikely to be a low-profile individual now that he is a foreign recipient of France's highest award, and will be having coverage of his role on Dancing with the Stars. Quote on quote "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Skarlatos role in the stopping of the French train attack was very well documented by international media. Skarlatos does not satisfy that category. Skarlatos also satisfies the WP:GNG. He has had more attention about him than just his role in the attack by international media. He will know be getting more coverage since he will be on Dancing with the Stars. This article was nominated for deletion too early. He does satisfy the guidelines, and his article should stay. Good day! CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal. Pincrete ( talk) 17:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, if you read what I said, Skarlatos does not meet criteria for BLP1E for several reasons. That is to protect people who don't want fame, obviously he wants fame due to the fact that he will be on Dancing with the Stars. I do agree that I am being biased due to the Crystal rule, but you know there is alternatives to deletion. Also; he meets the Wikipedia notability guide WP:ANYBIO #1, quote on quote "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." He also meets Wikipedia notability guide WP:NotableMIL #1, quote on quote "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Of course I read what you wrote, what information is in this article that is not already in the main 'attack' article, apart from the 'dancing' plug and the assumption that this is going to lead to notability beyond the single event? See my remarks about WP:CRIME below, because everything in this discussion hinges on whether going to be in 'Dancing', justifies the seperate article. Pincrete ( talk) 08:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - per WP:ANYBIO #1, Legion of Honor the highest award in France. WP:BLP1E requires three criteria to be met but does not meet #1 because Skarlatos will be on Dances with Stars. His decision to appear on Dancing with the Stars tells us he is seeking the spotlight and choosing to be a public figure. BLP1E is meant to protect people from becoming a public figure who otherwise don't seek it but were thrust into the spotlight by some news event. Skarlatos is seeking the spotlight and now involved in multiple events. Also #3 requires an "insignificant event"; this arguably a significant event and he played a prominent role. -- Green C 00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep His Dancing with the Stars is very persuasive for a keep since he would be a war hero and a TV star. Other Dancing with the Stars contestants have Wikipedia pages. A sign of our sad Wikipedia world is that the DWTS stint makes him notable, more than his role in stopping a terrorist attack. Sandra opposed to terrorism ( talk) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sandra, as I say above to CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal, neither motives nor intentions are known. Pincrete ( talk) 17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He's been featured on many media outlets for a significant amount of time and will continue to be covered on, which already establishes some notability. I think an article for him is in order. In fact, I think articles for all the other passengers involved in subduing the gunman is in order. Versus001 ( talk) 03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment These are all WP:Crystal arguments, of course his present fame MAY lead to him being known beyond this event, but at present this one event is the sole reason for the coverage. Pincrete ( talk) 09:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The guy is known for 2 reasons. Just because a particular reader or man on the street is ignorant and doesn't know him is not a disqualifying reason. For example, ask the man on the street who famous author Pablo Neruda or famous painter Jackson Pollack were and maybe 95% of people will say "never heard of him". Given that criteria, most Wikipedia articles would be deleted except the Kardashians and President Obama. Even the Prime Minister of New Zealand would be deleted because 99% of people on the street can't name him. Sandra opposed to terrorism ( talk) 21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
At present, he is known for one reason, and the best place to incorporate the info about him is the event for which he is known, where it is given context, and will remain permanent. Everything else is crystal-ball gazing based on just over two weeks of news coverage. The media and the public are fickle. Pincrete ( talk) 08:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
CookieMonster, I was not aware of WP:ANYBIO, thanks for bringing that to my attention. If that's legit, I would change my vote (unhappily, but I would). The reason I'm not happy about it, is that it would mean we have about one million articles to add to WP. Would you like to take the first 500,000 and I'll take the rest? ;-) Mathglot ( talk) 07:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
CookieMonster read on below ANYBIO to WP:CRIME: " A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." ... What encyclopedic info cannot be incorporated, indeed has not already been incorporated in the main event page ? Pincrete ( talk) 08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
He is not a criminal. I pointed out that he qualifies for his own article under ANYBIO. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
'who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial', of course he isn't a criminal. Who suggested he was? Pincrete ( talk) 17:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry Pincrete for not reading the full text in context. I guess Skarlatos would fit in that category... CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Necrothesp - He still does not fit the BLP1E. I explained above. No, his media coverage is not a BLP1E. What about Dancing with the Stars coverage he has already received. Does that have any connection with the Paris train attack? I don't think so... but it's fine if you beg differently. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
He has only been asked to be on Dancing with the Stars because of the Paris train attack, so yes, it quite clearly has a connection. How bizarre that you seem to think it doesn't! Reality TV contestants always get a lot of coverage but are not generally considered to be notable just because they're reality TV contestants. This is long-established. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Hmm... you do make a point Necrothesp, but I feel like your being sarcastic, but I guess that's just me. CookieMonster755 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
No, not sarcastic. Just rather surprised at your statement that his reality TV coverage had nothing to do with his exploits in France. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Are you trying to suggest that someone with significant coverage somehow isn't notable? -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Jakob, the coverage isn't simply significant, it's huge, however all of it relates the the 'trigger event', and guidelines are clear that he should be covered within the event page. There is anyway no additional content on 'his' page apart from maybe he is going to be on a dance programme. Pincrete ( talk) 21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You can't vote twice, the nomination is considered a vote. You may comment, or engage in discussion, as much as you like, though. Kraxler ( talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Kraxler, I didn't consider the nomination a vote, more a question, however I am happy to abide by standard practice. Pincrete ( talk) 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Clarification, I did not nominate this article for deletion because I thought that there was insufficient coverage, nor because I believed that Skarlatos did not 'deserve' coverage. Rather because WP's best interest (and his?) are best served by covering his role within the incident for which he is known. Time will tell whether he carves out a public role outside that event. Pincrete ( talk) 12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Appears to be notable for both a television role and winning a notable award for heroism; this BLP1E is not relevant. -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Third-level (or lower) gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Many thousands of people have won such decorations. Why is he special? Reality TV contestant because of his gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Perfectly well covered in the article on the incident. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Necrothesp. Notability needs to stand the test of time, and this person clearly doesn't. In the world we live in these days, anyone can garner significant coverage in a matter of hours. Does an encyclopaedia benefit from articles about things gone viral? I seriously doubt it. If he becomes notable in the near future, then we can easily recreate this biography. Let's see what happens; from experience I'm about 96% sure there'll be no more coverage about him in a couple of months' time, but then again let's not assume, let's see (which is how Wikipedia works, not assuming people deserve articles but rather observing after there is well-established atemporal and extensive coverage). FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • note that journalists [7] and [8] their [9] readers [10] can't seem to get enough Skarlatos. That was just some of what's on a news google search by "most recent first". I propose we all put way our crystal balls, keep this one for now, and revisit in a year, when there may be some clarity as to enduring notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
E.M.Gregory, you have voted above to 'keep'. Pincrete ( talk) 20:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
True. Nor did I just "vote". I "noted" that quite a lot of coverage continues to appear daily in mainstream media. I suggested that the article be kept - because it has a ton of sources; pointed out that calling this a flash in the pan requires the use of a crystal ball; and suggested that a kept article can be revisited if an editor thinks - months from now - that he can persuade the rest of us that Skarlatos was a mere nine days wonder. Cheers. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Clarify I am a firm keep. There is notability here. If it comes up for AFD again, I will argue that enduring notability is established by sources now available. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 06:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Winner 42, as I've said often above, there is enormous coverage, but almost all of it relates directly to the train incident, what point therefore is repeating that info on a 'private' page? Maybe in the future he will establish some notability outside that incident, at present he hasn't. What does WP gain? Gathering all relevant info in one place, where it has context. Pincrete ( talk) 07:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (or maybe redirect--let the tabloids decide whether to redirect to the Thalys attack or to Dancing with the Stars). I don't see why anyone who makes the papers needs an article, hero or not. We have this crazy situation where everything gets written up in some publication which by sheer force of weight gets accepted as a reliable source, and next thing you know we have a million YouTube "personalities" and other biographies of people who otherwise would live a peaceful two-sentence existence in a bigger article. I'm completely with Necrothesp: coverage is limited (of course) to the one event, and the rest is crystalballery. BTW, someone needs to explain to me, at some point, why a contestant on a TV dance show needs an article. Like, a real explanation please, not one that says "Entertainment Tonight mentioned his name three times, as did Perez Hilton". Drmies ( talk) 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comments (probably nothing useful:)), funny when afds become longer then the article concerned, "The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability" - very common??, I don't have one, does anyone else involved in this discussion?, according to the wikiarticle Legion of Honour, as of 2010 there has only been about 100,000 issued, if we can have thousands of articles about academy award winners and sports people ("competed at the modern Olympic Games" is notable WP:NOLYMPICS - 1000s compete at each Olympics eg. over 10,000 at London) why can't recipients of this honor (and obes, mbes as well:)) have an article (and no, I am not volunteering to do them:))? Also, is the WP:SOLDIER comment relevant as this person is receiving the award as a civilian? If this article is redirected, won't there arise balance/undue weight issues in the main article? "it's only a WP:BLP1E situation" which states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met" (my emphasis) can someone please show where this is the case here as I have not been convinced by the 'deleters'. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Coolabahapple, WP:CRIME advises: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There are at least 5 people whose actions on the train are highly notable (2 French (one whose full name is not known), 3 US, 1 UK). Is the reader better served by all of the relevant info being in one place (inc. their honours) or being spread across 5-6 articles? Pincrete ( talk) 17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Pincrete, fair point about WP:CRIME, although I have been involved in/and read afds where the idea that WP:GNG trumps other policies/guidelines has held sway. On the point about the other people involved, if they are seen as notable/more notable then Skarlatos I am sure an editor will remedy their non-article situation. If a reader is interested enough in the subject, a couple of clicks won't put them off. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe! But it's more likely to be the will of consensus based on policy and determined by the closing administrator. If you'd like to consider administrators to be servants of the Lord that is, of course, entirely up to you. Keegan ( talk) 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I was being serious with a hint of humor ;P CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Let’s face it, WP:BLP1E rule is somewhat subjective. For example, most Congressional Medal of Honor winners are low-viz people who earn their notability with one act of courage. If an individual captures the world’s attention like Skarlatos has, they should be notable enough for an individual Wikipedia page. There’s certainly enough independent, secondary source material to do a good article on him including information about his personal life (which goes beyond his involvement in the train attack). The fact that he have now been selected to be on Dancing with the Stars is good evidence that his notoriety may go beyond just one event. One final point … all of the participants in the 2015 season of Dancing with the Stars now have individual bio articles in Wikipedia (along with all their professional dancing partners)…see Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 20). So are we going to delete Skarlatos bio article now and then add it back when he starts dancing?-- Orygun ( talk) 00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If all there was was terror attack, then WP:BLP1E might apply. I do think it is too early to decide whether or not WP:BIO1E is indicated, per WP:CRYSTAL. But using BLP1E, this individual does not appear to meet all 3 criteria. All that said, with the announcement of his participation on DWTS, BLP1E clearly no longer applies. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Toshishiro Obata

Toshishiro Obata (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinkendo, three different editors questioned the notability of this person, the inventor of [Shinkendo. When attempting to rewrite this article recently, I was able to find only one source with any coverage at all of his life and achievements (I don't speak or read Japanese). I too question his notability. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 22:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That would be WP:MANOTE. Peter Rehse ( talk) 22:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I see WP:MANOTE is an essay rather than a guideline, but still works. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Solo Türk

Solo Türk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most Air Forces have one or more solo display aircraft that fly in events and airshows and unlike multiple aircraft aerobatic teams these are not really notable, I cant see that this solo aircraft is particularly notable outside a mention on the Turkish Air Force page. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Air Forces solo display aircraft teams are notable. Air Forces solo display aircraft teams should have one pages, or at least build into the Air Force page with MORE than just 1-2 sentens.
FFA P-16 ( talk) 22:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@Steelpillow I can not see any word on Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) that single aircraft display Teams are not notable.. There exist a few single aircraft teams who play an important part on international air shows with history and some of them earned aviatic awards. I don't see any reason why Display Teams with 2 or more aircraft can bee on Wikipedia and such with 1 aircraft not. FFA P-16 ( talk) 16:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
One lone machine is not a "team". The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft. If a given "team" gains enough mention then notability can be established in the usual way by citing reliable sources which actually address the notability of the aircraft and/or its team. That is not the case here, the main sources are concerned with a centenary event and this aircraft's display gets only a passing mention. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Well the therm Team is not only relatet to the numbers of aircraft. I can not agree with "The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft". Whitout more than 1 person no aircraft display would be possibel . Also the definition "One lone machine is not a "team"" is not right [11] its 1 Superpuma or Cougar.. but its the Super Puma Display Team..Super Puma Display TEAM. Or [12] again its SWISS HORNET DISPLAY TEAM. Also they don't do just some fly by, they have a real display program with manouvers specialised for a display. FFA P-16 ( talk) 10:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Still on Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is no definition about Display Teams nor a definition about the term "Team". To have here on English Wikipedia only the Teams from 2 aircraft and more but suppress informations about single aircraft display teams makes Wikipedia in this aeronautics topic an unusable tool. FFA P-16 ( talk) 12:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is a tool for informations. It is not at wikipeda to define what is an aerobatic team and what is not. If an Air Force like the Greece, Belgian, Swiss , Turkish Air Force(in this case the Turkish Air Force) has given an single aircraft display team the official statuts, it si it. Wikipedia can (should)put in this in its "database". To think Wikipedia could determine over decisions of Air Force is illogical and absurd. Banish teams with only one airplane from Wikipedia, violated the basic idea of Wikipedia about the neutral and equitable access of information. FFA P-16 ( talk) 12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I appreciate the effort put in creating the article, but I see no notability on it. If single aircraft in airline fleets are not notable, I don't see why a particular military aircraft is.-- Jetstreamer  Talk 17:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: These single aircraft demonstrations should just be a simple mention on the page of the applicable air force, not their own article. - Ahunt ( talk) 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment two issues. 1) is there significant mentions in reliable sources to show notability of the subject, 2) is there sufficient material to write a complete article without padding the article with non-notable material? I think both need to be achieved for the article to stand alone. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment also note that air forces like the Royal Air Force have had four or five solo demonstration aircraft every year for a long time, at the beginning of the season you get a press release as they paint a new scheme on an aircraft to use, although it is the pilot who is the authorised demonstrator so sometimes they dont use the "painted" aircraft. Take the other Swiss example the Swiss Super Puma solo demonstrator uses a different aircraft from the fleet every time as the display authority for solos is the pilot. We might consider a stand-alone article on military aircraft solo demonstrators but if you look at something like the Royal International Air Tattoo these are pretty common and none I would say are notable for a stand-alone article like this one. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Super Puma Display Team can use any of the Swiss Air Forces Super Puma or Cougar right, but we should not focus on it if the aircraft has a special painting or if there are 1 or more pilots. I think the approach for such single aircraft teams verification of notability should be his continuity in standardized existence for several years (for eg. since min.3 years) with regular displays flown on public events and or airshows. No mater if an aircraft has a special painting or not. I would not count aircraft with a special paint for just a single event (for eg . NATO Tigermeet) to this. FFA P-16 ( talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this mosque does not meet Wikipedia's standards of topic notability to qualify for an article. North America 1000 00:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Peer Fani Masjid, Bidar

Peer Fani Masjid, Bidar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a mosque which does not meet WP:GNG. My searches bring up zero hits on this mosque. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: No assertion of notability. The article basically says that it's a mosque near Bidar, a town about 100km from Hyderabad. The article about Bidar mentions a long list of monuments in the city, but makes no mention of this mosque, so I seriously doubt that it's very significant. I did web and Google Books searches, but they also failed to turn up anything significant. -- Slashme ( talk) 09:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus: not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Gian Carlos

Gian Carlos (  | 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: utterly non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 05:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 00:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ivor Lawton

Ivor Lawton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't played a first team game Telfordbuck ( talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hit Squad. ( non-admin closure)Davey2010 Talk 01:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Knucklehedz

Knucklehedz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails on WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Notability tag is placed since January 2011. No coverage in reliable sources at all. Hitro talk 21:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the qualification is playing in a regular season game, not just being on the roster DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ike Igbinosun

Ike Igbinosun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON. I can't find anything on him playing in a regular season game Rowsdower960 ( talk) 20:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tutelary ( talk) 20:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unable to find any reasonable news sources and otherwise does not meet any notability standard that I can find.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This one is a close call. He has a profile at Pro-Football-Reference.com here, which I think means that he is a regular roster player (as opposed to just practice squad) but lists no regular season game appearances. Then there's this from NFL.com, which seems to state he remains on the Jacksonville Jaguars roster as of the last preseason game on 9/3/15 (and so far I find no release saying he's been cut). Also, there is some significant coverage. See, e.g., this profile from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, this from the New Haven Register, this short piece from First Coast News, this blurb from the Sun Times Network, this longer story from Bleacher Report (debatable as reliable source), and this short blurb from Rolling Stone. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While I appreciate the research efforts that Cbl62 made above, I see exactly one independent, reliable source that rises to the level of significant coverage of the subject (i.e., Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2012, linked above). The remainder of the coverage is routine transactional coverage that every NFL signee receives, one that discussed the purported unpronounceability of his name (i.e., Rolling Stone), with the added coverage of a fansite (i.e., BleacherReport.com). The subject player was not a notable college athlete, and has never played in a regular season NFL game in three previous NFL seasons; he is not a part of any roster, practice otherwise, and the likelihood of him now appearing in an NFL game is slim. I see no loss of encyclopedic content by the deletion of this article. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, edits conflicted, user realised how to create a PROD template. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Dubble A

Dubble A (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For Sgim43 ( talk · contribs), who says that By this own definition [of Dubble A having a single or album on a national music chart] fails the requirement, as the source given in not a recognized or National Music Chart. All Access Music Group, the creator of this "chart" doesn't even have a wikipage. Based on this then I could create and LLC as a upstart publishing company or radio station, create a list with any 10 people I want and then create pages for them!" My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus that no nobility has been shown DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Mohkam Din Serani

Mohkam Din Serani (  | 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 is so troubled and my searches found nothing aside from a YouTube video here and a blog there and the current sources aren't very detailed so unless this can actually be improved, I'm not seeing much and this has existed since August 2008 without the slightest significant improvement. Pinging tagger MBisanz and maybe Diannaa (removed the wikifying tag). SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- the present article says nothing about what he did in a probably long period between his going to Delhi and being poisoned at the age of about 60. I get the feeling that the article has lost its middle and that he is an early holder of some important office, but currently he appears to be utterly NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we can't be left to guess what an article is about, the creator of it should tell us, or there should be sources to enlighten us, but there aren't any. Kraxler ( talk) 20:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied to User:Niespodj/The Other Side (2014 film) due to future potential.-- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The Other Side (2014 film)

The Other Side (2014 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film which only contains one Unreliable source. The article does not meet any sort of notability requirement including WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Searches are difficult as there seem to be several different films by the same name. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I am new to wiki so I apologize if not using proper tags, etc. There are approximately two dozen legitimate reviews of the film. I did not post them on the page because I wanted to keep it 100% neutral and not show favoritism in selecting one review over another. Also, if the official website is visited (www.teamorchard.com) there are direct links on the front page to the film online on all major internet video on demand platforms, including Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, iTunes, and Google Play. I did not include these links in the movie's page because I did not want to commercialize it or use it for publicity. The film has also screened at a half dozen film festivals in 2015. There are films with the same title listed that have far less credentials and widescale availability, so I'm unsure why this particular film page is being targeted for deletion. Niespodj ( talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Being available for distribution and having screened at festivals aren't things that would automatically give notability, although they do make it much easier for something to gain coverage. I'll try to find the reviews, but I'm concerned that these reviews might not be usable as reliable sources ( WP:RS) and may be the unusable sources that Erik was talking about. Not all reviews are usable as reliable sources, so if something was covered in a self-published blog, those cannot be used. (However if the blog was included in a notable, reliable aggregate website like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes as a critic review, then it could be used.) Also, saying that other things exist ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) with less notability on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for inclusion, as there are many, many articles on here for films that really don't pass notability guidelines - they just haven't been detected yet. However all of that said, I will try to look for sources and see if I can find enough for the film to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy. Right now it's a little early for it to have an article, as the only true coverage we have is a press release from Dread Central and two articles from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. There are some blog reviews out there, but not in any places that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. However given that the film has just gone to VOD, it's possible that there will be some more reviews coming in the future, so I think it'd be a good idea to userfy the content. I'm willing to do that, since that would help counteract the concerns about a conflict of interest. Now if these reviews come up before the AfD closes, this will of course be a keep on my end. Niespodj, since you are involved with the film I'd like to suggest that you petition the following sites for reviews: Dread Central, HorrorNews.net, Bloody Disgusting, Fangoria, and Ain't It Cool News. AICN, Fangoria, and HN.N are all very good about reviewing indie horror films. Flickering Myth and We Got This Covered are also good places to look towards for soliciting reviews as well, since they're also good about reviewing indie films and both are considered to be RS on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
alts
writer/director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer/director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
distributor:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Even if no new sources pop up in 6 days, with wide release September 18, we probably will not have to wait for Halloween. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Schmidt, I had to remove the Dread Central bit from the reception section. The Dread Central article is a reprint of the press release for the most part and the bits that were added as a review were from the press release. You can tell because this was reprinted in this website and labeled as a press release. The portions about the cast's home bases looks like it was heavily or directly taken from a press release as well, but that's a basic detail so there's no reason not to include that - just be careful about anything italicized on DC since that usually means that they took it from somewhere else. However that said, I did find some probably usable reviews, so yay for that. I'll add them soon. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Argh, all blog reviews. (Got them from this press package.) I was hoping that Horror Society would at least be usable, but they have nothing on their page about their editorial oversight. The other sites are either outright unusable blogs or also lack anything on their site that would show that they have an editorial board that Wikipedia would approve of as a RS. (sighs) I wish more outlets would label people as editors or whatnot. Horror Society likely does have them, but chooses not to include them. I'll drop them an e-mail about this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Clear consensus; not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

AHuman Project

AHuman Project (  | 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 asserted, no third-party sources (the one "reference" is by no means a source for the subject, having nothing to do with the AHumanProject), opinionated incoherent writing. I PRODded it, but the prod was promptly removed by the creator, with the argument that it needs to be on Wikipedia precisely because it is nowhere else, if I understood them correctly. [13] Bishonen | talk 16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

VS: Well, let me clarify. I have used many sources, including Wikipedia to create content of aHuman. This project is not just pages to collect the information, but it contains know-how on how to integrate the information, and auto-generated content. Quality of data were confirmed several times in private emails to me from science representatives. Still, as I'm not a part of science community, it's quite hard to have formal references. At least, I have not spend much efforts for that up to the moment. Nevertheless, I think that it is the quite unique source of information, which have to be available to scientists. aHuman tag on google search is first line of output - so I can pretend it's sort of referenced actually. But when google buried its googlecode service and I migrated project to specific hosting, I need smth to let people know where they can find aHuman pages now. So, it is need both to community an to me (btw, to much lesser extent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik ( talkcontribs) 16:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

VS: Guys, ok, looks like you do not see the point. Wikipedia will miss more than me. Your pages are also criticized for politicisms and intentional distortions and some people do not trust your information at all. Now I also can see your rule set is somehow reasonable but fail in some cases. If you like you can believe that it is a sort of consensus. Happy with "let alone discussing it in any depth" - gentle enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik ( talkcontribs) 19:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Yep.The topics of Wikipedia articles have to meet our notability guideline. At present, this one doesn't. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -Although this sounds like an interesting project, it needs, as others have stated, to have been written about in independant reliable sources to be considered notable for Wikipedia. ABF99 ( talk) 03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

VS: final message from me. Wikipedia is arranged collection of significant facts. It is the only achievable goal disregarding your personal thoughts about it. aHuman is a fact confirmed by its author. And it is significant fact because of the concept and volume and quality of published project data. Hence if your rules prevent people across the world to let know about this fact, it means that existing formal rule set is incorrect. So is up to you whether to sacrifise Wikipedia mission or to improve rules.

Thank you all, welcome to ahuman.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik ( talkcontribs) 09:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 00:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Alesia McKinnon

Alesia McKinnon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Other than her IMDb page I couldn't find enough coverage about her. In fact, the TV series mentioned in the article, Clairvoyance: The Ellis Files, is currently a red link, and even if it weren't, the role, as well as McKinnon's other roles, do not appear to pass WP:ENTERTAINER as they are mostly guest or supporting roles. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 15:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
CSD A7 does not seem to apply in view of her IMDb page. [14] -- Edcolins ( talk) 13:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah nope I was indeed wrong as A7 states " The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear,", so nope you're completely correct, In that case Delete as non notable actress. – Davey2010 Talk 14:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

New Amsterdam Spirits

New Amsterdam Spirits (  | 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:NOTADVERTISING, lack of reliable sources JMHamo ( talk) 15:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 15:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 15:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Pichilemu political controversies

Pichilemu political controversies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local political lore in a place of pop. 14,000; fails WP:NEVENT, coverage is very much restricted to the local newspapers Kraxler ( talk) 14:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The controversies were definitely notable to be mentioned in so many news outlet, and even considering the local sources heavily outweigh any national ones, there's not really a requirement for an article to have multiple national sources for the subject of it to be considered notable. It doesn't overuse a single source, it uses multiple sources from many newspapers, which is why I feel it should be kept. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I suggest you check again the sources. There are dead links, official election department candidates' listings, and a lot of pieces from the Pichilemu local papers. There are about three sources from bigger newspapers for a few particular points, but that doesn't mean that the whole lot gets suddenly notable. See also WP:COATRACK. Kraxler ( talk) 17:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Kraxler, I suggest you withdraw this nomination. I could even, myself, give you access to El Mercurio web archives (I'm a suscriber) so that you can see yourself there is plenty of coverage on this series of events. Not to mention, La Tercera, El Rancagüino (offline) and other non-local references... (I see you have a problem with local sources) Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I suggest you read carefully WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. Kraxler ( talk) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
These don't have anything to do with this particular article. Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 01:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
They are guidelines applicable to all articles on events. Kraxler ( talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Patricio Morales

Patricio Morales (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 14:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
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. Too minor of a politician with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG-- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 07:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrea Aranda

Andrea Aranda (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 14:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 Too minor of a politician with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG-- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 07:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Viviana Parraguez

Viviana Parraguez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 14:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Minor local politician with non-significant coverage. Fails our inclusion guidelines.-- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 07:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Juan Cornejo

Juan Cornejo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 13:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. consensus is sufficient DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Roberto Córdova

Roberto Córdova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of a place of pop. 14,000, fails WP:NPOL, coverage is WP:ROUTINE and restricted to his hometown newspaper, fails also WP:GNG Kraxler ( talk) 13:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
While it is better that you've found some non-Pichilemu sources, the coverage in those are mentions where he is quoted or interviewed, with very little content on the individual himself. I'm discounting the Pichilemu sources who of course will cover their mayor in-depth but lack scope. Vrac ( talk) 20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
An entity that itself has a population of about 40k. It has been translated as "province" but a closer equivalent in English would be county. A province is commonly a principal administrative division, which is not the case in Chile, whose principal administrative divisions are the regions. Vrac ( talk) 18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. He never received significant press coverage. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Exactly. Even the head of the subdivision itself would be deleted if it only had a population of 40,000 failing another reason to keep him. And that would be the case in Britain or America just as it would anywhere else. Leaders of British county councils don't generally have articles, for example, and they often serve a population of several hundred thousand. He just isn't notable enough. Sorry. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Geoffroy Faugérolas

Geoffroy Faugérolas (  | 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 filmmaker. Fails both WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BASIC. I could find a passing reference here, one interview on Lazydog Films (a blog), and another interview on Flickering Myth (which seems to be a blog as well), but this is insufficient under WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Edcolins ( talk) 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - article created by Geothebg ( talk · contribs), a WP:SPA who also created the now-deleted article for someone else of the same last name. "Nominations" - seemingly just showings at a film festival - are for local festivals anyway and do not add up to the level of significance we seek for nominations qualifying one for notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Aldo Polanco

Aldo Polanco (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. With no prejudice towards recreation if construction ends up going ahead and further coverage occurs. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Kuching Tower

Kuching Tower (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kuching tower ground breaking ceremony was held in 2005 and is never completed. Apart from news back in 2005, there is no news since then for the progress of the construction. Cerevisae ( talk) 11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ontological question: how can a something physical be notable if it does not yet exist? New Media Theorist ( talk) 21:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The media release on which the article is based states that is "located on the Kuching Isthmus" - yet satellite and streetview imagery from 2015 shows no indication of such a structure there. No evidence this project went ahead beyond the initial media release. -- ELEKHH T 11:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as this is too crystally and if it wasn't for the unclear plans, it would've been acceptable but we'll wait for a more solid article. SwisterTwister talk
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. L Faraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Edward Aguirre

Edward Aguirre (  | 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 was nominated for speedy deletion, which I don't think it quite meets. I suspect this person is non-notable (the books are vanity press) but bringing it to AfD just in case. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn - article has been moved and improved by @ Fenix down:. Giant Snowman 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

NFF Women's League Squad 2015

NFF Women's League Squad 2015 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This is a non-notable list of people, and we don't have (or need) individual squad lists, especially for such a minor tournament / so many non-notable people. Giant Snowman 10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Understand, I am working on profile for all players, is this something i should have before creating the squad list? Mike Hadnett ( talk) 10:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Mike Hadnett: - no, these people are non-notable unless' they have played senior international football for New Zealand (see WP:NFOOTBALL) and any profiles you create will just wind up deleted as well. I suggest you save your time. Giant Snowman 10:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

*Delete - complete lack of coverage from secondary sources means that this fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is a team competing in the top level of women's football in New Zealand, indeed, it is a team that has won the competition several times in recent years per RSSSF. I have moved the article to a more appropriate title per RSSSF, namely Northern Football and provided additional references to show their repeated successes at the highest national level. @ GiantSnowman:, @ Spiderone:, does this change your opinion? I think this is more a case of a new editor not creating the right article title than a non-notable subject and want to avoid any biting. Fenix down ( talk) 16:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Steadfastness and Confrontation Front

Steadfastness and Confrontation Front (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be entirely Original Research Qualitatis ( talk) 09:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep needs more sources for sure, just one external link, but doesn't appear to be WP:OR, as it was formed. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Not 'original research' at all. More sources might be good, but I don't see how this could be mistaken for original research. -- Mrodowicz ( talk) 16:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep I don't see how this is a valid reason to delete. Nonetheless, while researching this topic, I did come across some discrepancies between the sources and this article. I tagged them accordingly, and also added a source to the verifiable information. (There is a possibility that the content I tagged is not OR and that I was simply not thorough enough.) Elspamo4 ( talk) 18:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 15:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Pancho Tequila

Pancho Tequila (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mexican film from 1970 with no references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Standard searches were done and article PROD'd, which was declined by article creator. Sending to AFD. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep Pure laziness. I removed the prod because it's notable, it just needed expanding. In future User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR try searching in google books before nominating or prodding. Oh and please change your user name, it's utterly ridiculous and offputting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll be glad to look at the spanish language sources you added. I checked one already and it was a single mention of the title. [22] The others may be better. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Dear Alphabet soup-named nominator... go read WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and understand WP:COMMONSENSE... something released 20 years pre-internet need not remain in the hardcopy headlines, and there is a reasonable expectation that film with lots of notable Mexican actors would have had coverage 45 years ago. Due diligence, dude... due diligence. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Alts
original:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
type:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep in full agreement with Dr. Blofeld. Being unsourced is NOT a deletion rationale when sources are so easily found available with a little due diligence... even if Spanish. Per WP:HANDLE we fix the fixable, not toss them out of sheer laziness. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I won't claim any particular expertise on Mexican movies, but this has everything I'd expect to see in a notable one: notable director (who directed several Cantinflas features), several notable actors, notable studio. We don't have an article on the main star, but he does appear notable enough for one. The fact that it was released on DVD 35 years after it was made shows some measure of enduring cultural interest. The only issue I see is the image is labeled a poster when it's clearly a DVD cover or something similar, but that's far from cause for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As explained above.-- Ipigott ( talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 16:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Sanjeev Goel

Sanjeev Goel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP, tagged as needing reference improvement since 2010 without further action, of a person notable only as a deputy leader of a minor political party. While the party is one whose leader generally gets over the bar, the same can't be said of the deputies — and being a deputy leader isn't a notability freebie under WP:NPOL. The extant source isn't even substantively about him, either, but merely namechecks his existence — and the article reads very like a campaign brochure, written almost entirely in incomplete sentence fragments and delving far more into unsourced statements of his beliefs and inspirations than into anything encyclopedic that he did. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 09:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Earl Amyotte

Earl Amyotte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as the leader of an unregistered fringe political party. This was fine under the standards that Wikipedia held when it was first created, but consensus changed and this no longer satisfies WP:NPOL. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some "keep" arguments are notably weak because they don't address the reasons advanced for deletion, such as "as notable as any other video game", or "I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive", when the nomination makes clear that this is not the argument being made here. Among the other opinions, we have consensus that sourcing is too weak at this time to meet WP:GNG.  Sandstein  07:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 (  | 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 understand the WP:NOTCENSORED arguments. This is not about censorship. I am not a Muslim, not personally offended. The reality is, this game has simply not received significant coverage in reliable sources. At the first nomination, some suggested additional coverage would occur. This has not happened. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mandate inclusion of every potentially offensive topic AusLondonder ( talk) 08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Mentions in a couple of articles from outlets such as Vice do not meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
These aren't mere mentions, the sources are reliable and they provide significant coverage which is the definition of GNG passing coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Don't agree. Not all those sources are reliable. AusLondonder ( talk) 10:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Epoch Times, éVice News, Republika, and MeriStation all aren't reliable? Please read WP:RS again. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Throwaway game covered minimally as news posts, no serious reviews or in depth coverage. This has gather less coverage than Vice's London Piss Dungeon. The game is so stupid that there is no serious commentary, compare that with Slave Tetris, where we have coverage into why people believe the game is wrong, and what we can learn from it. [25] [26] - hahnch e n 09:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Are you suggesting that the coverage this game has received is somehow routine? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
No. Its the exact opposite. Video games are things people play for entertainment value. This game is controversial and all coverage about the game is about how it is controversial, not about how the game was made, reviews it received, music, sound, graphics, or any other quality that would be fitting of a video game. For that it fails the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG which is defined as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" [27]. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 03:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG, endorse CerealKillerYum's point that all coverage is about the offensiveness of the name/game. The little coverage there is, is about the controversy not the game itself, which has attracted almost zero coverage. Pincrete ( talk) 11:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There was alot of talk about this game around the time the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened. I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive. Illstillbehere ( talk) 09:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note to reviewing admin: Illstillbehere has 4 edits at this time, 3 of them were to this page, CerealKillerYum ( talk) 09:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
As I made clear, I did not nominate this for its offensiveness or otherwise. I nominated because it is non-notable. AusLondonder ( talk) 09:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG which requires not only significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but also coverage which persists over time. The sources available are so-so, but all of the coverage comes from the same 3-day span, with next to nothing since then (though I'm content to switch my !vote if others find such sources). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This falls under WP:SENSATION. A game, that caught the attention of a small number of media outlets, briefly. a quick search here: [28] I cannot find that it got either enduring or extensive coverage, or that objections to it received significant coverage. Flag me if anyone demonstrates significant coverage, and I'll revisit. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 08:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The game itself seems to fail GNG but the contraversy about it, may not. Is there an article about similar contravercies? It can possibly be merged into it. Settleman ( talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Settleman: The controversy would likewise have to pass WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage [of the controversy] in multiple reliable sources over a period of time. As there seems to be 100% overlap between coverage of the game and coverage of controversy surrounding the game, it seems unlikely sufficient sources about the latter exist. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If there is nowhere to merge it, my vote is Delete. Settleman ( talk) 17:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
They also consistently nominated articles for speedy that are not suitable, eg a peer reviewed journal Electronic Book Review and the Roman Catholic Church in Turkmenistan. Both with actual claims to notability. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rhododendrites: The GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There's nothing in that guideline saying coverage must last for months or years. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to this topic. — Torchiest talk edits 15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

MSP Intermark

MSP Intermark (  | 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 notability guidelines. References are dead links and, if they were to be alive, would have been non-notable sources. Nothing came up in Google News or Google. Author is a SPA [29] CerealKillerYum ( talk) 08:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 08:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 08:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Eclectika (festival)

Eclectika (festival) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by IP without giving any reason. The subject hardly has any coverage given the annual recurring nature of the event. Fails WP:NEVENTS. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
There are various notability points mentioned on WP:EVENT and "took note" is not one of them. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I think WP:EVENT is saying that event should be "Worthy of Notice". The Times of India (TOI) is not only largest selling English daily in India but also in World in terms of circulation. TOI finds it "worthy of notice" and "took note" of this event. This event is not notable unless someone proves that these news are paid news.-- Human3015 Send WikiLove  04:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, we have been interacting on many pages for now; thanks for hounding, and its quite clear that you lack competency to understand many a simple things; sorry to point it out. There is no in-depth coverage, or lasting effects of the event, or coverage outside geoscope, or diversity of coverage, etc etc points that are listed in guideline. Also, the minglebox link that you are posting is not WP:RS. http://www.minglebox.com/aboutus is a student's portal. Dainik Bhaskar which is a newspaper with headquarters in MP cared to write exactly 10 sentences about this event in Raipur. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please don't WP:ACCUSE, there are other boards to raise this "hound" issue, not here. I will clear myself regarding sources, 2013 Times of India, 2014 Times of India. -- Human3015 Send WikiLove  05:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Lauren Manning

Lauren Manning (  | 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: cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate VICTIM; any post 9/11 notability would appear to be a continuing seam or thread from that day onward. I know, I know: I must be a heartless bastard. Quis separabit? 22:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: Agreed, notability isn't fleeting, the book referenced in the article appears to be self published by Lauren's husband and apparently hasn't sold many copies based on it being ranked below #375,000 in books by sales volume. Nefariousski ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. No real reason offered for deletion. WP:VICTIM has nothing to do with WP:N. WP:VICTIM is all about criminal events, not victim-survivors of 9/11. This nomination is bogus. Toffanin ( talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • SisterTwister is a diligent editor, but I have found, as here: Douglas Al-Bazi that her assertions of a lack of sources can be, well, what can I say, I have found extensive sourcing on AFDs brought or supported by SisterTwister, who works very quickly and deserves credit for spotting many, many legitimate candidates for deletion. However, re: Lauren Manning, take a look at this quick search [30] which begins with this full profile in vogue magazine [31]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
And a trout to the Nom for bringing this without a thorough WP:BEFORE. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
My guess is that the page is weak not because the topic is unimportant, but because it is too painful for many of us to deal with. Even after all these years. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep" -- interesting. @E.M. Gregory: are you moving pawns around a chess board or making marionettes dance? I see no keep consensus as of yet, much less a SNOWBALL. Quis separabit? 17:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per above as well as per sources - This is something that should never be deleted and should never have even been nominated, An article likes this needs improving not deleting period. – Davey2010 Talk 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@Davey2010: I mean no disrespect but you should try to base your judgments on guidelines not sentimentality. Your rationale offers no reasoning, just emotion. 9/11 was devastating (I live in Lower Manhatan and was at work a quarter of a mile away from Ground Zero at 26 Federal Plaza that morning, just so you know I am not a heartless dick) but try to keep perspective. Quis separabit? 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
To me, it looks as though User:Davey2010 based him assessment on policy: "as per sources." Followed with an expression of strong feeling, Quis separabit? responded based on feelings. It's oK to have feelings, as long as assessments are based on policy, facts, sources.08:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
E.M.Gregory's correct - I did say "per above as well as per sources" so it wasn't all strong feelings but yes I do have strong feelings when it comes to stuff like this, I very very rarely express my feelings here but I don't see a problem just aslong as you keep it relevant and to the point, Wow I'd imagine that was absolutely terrifying!, I've never thought that about anyone on here at all, You nominated based on notability so it's all cool :) – Davey2010 Talk 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Being a victim of a horrible event is one thing, but the point here is notability. And for this person to be behind a well-received book that's brought them recognition, with the likes of NPR, the New York Times, etc mentioning her story and her book prominently, then it looks like she passes the notability bar easily. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -Enough references provided above to confirm notability. ABF99 ( talk) 15:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to meeting Notability for her story, RS articles from 2008 to 2012, she is also invited to comment on related issues as late as June 2014. [35] Nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON and the article can be easily cleaned up. 009o9 ( talk) 19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources are reliable (NY Times, USA Today, CNN). The book by her husband about her got some national attention (although it itself cannot be considered a neutral source, but it adds to the story). The article is still a stub, and needs work. I was easily able to find 6 NY Times articles specifically about her or with substantial information about her. LaMona ( talk) 03:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against undeletion if notability changes. L Faraone 16:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Sandrembi Chaishra

Sandrembi Chaishra (  | 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 cannot find any sources to show where this film is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. It's possible that there could be sources in another language, but I'm doubtful of this. I'm getting the impression that this is an indie production. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Alts
WP:INDAFD: "Sandrembi Chaishra" "Sandrembi and Chaishra" "Bobby Haobam" "Mahesh Konsam" "Bala Hijam" "Rahul Blue"
Alt:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Music:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete for while not utterly unsourcable, this brand new article is apparently TOO SOON. I found that a music video of a major song from the film was only recently released, [36] and this might indicate the film will follow within six months. Allow undeletion when inclusion criteria are met. If the author wishes it placed in a no-wiki'd draft space for work as release approaches, I'd say let him have it. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Steven M. Berman

Steven M. Berman (  | 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 article is not medicore but could certainly use improvement (information and source-wise) and my searches found nothing particularly good, here, here, here and here. This would've been redirected elsewhere (I was going to be bold but there's no good target) so I'd like to hear from users. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator as per http://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Wikipedia-have-a-page-about-ScoopWhoopCutestPenguin Hangout 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

ScoopWhoop

ScoopWhoop (  | 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 article lacks significance coverage in reliable sources. Most of cited sources are from self-published sources, partner's website and press release; it also fails WP:ORG. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article reads like an advertisement, prompting me to tag it as such. But that is strictly a content issue. At AfD, all we consider is notability. Under WP:GNG, notability is demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. Those sources clearly exist, as demonstrated by the Business Standard and Quartz articles. Msnicki ( talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Msnicki Note: All the newspaper and related articles cannot be considered to be reliable one; contents published such as press-releases...reviews is not considered to be the reliable one. Even if we consider these two sources as reliable (which is not that effective ) is not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:ORGDEPTH which states dept coverage in multiple reliable sources is needed. — CutestPenguin Hangout 14:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
"Multiple" is generally interpreted as at least two good sources at AfD. The Business Standard and Quartz articles satisfy the requirement. That makes this one a keep. Msnicki ( talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Msnicki You are right but press releases and reviews is not general cited or you can say is not treated as good /reliable references even if they are from great sources. These this and thisresults from Google points QZ more of an partner than an source for reliability to the article which again questions the WP:NEWSORG and WP:IRS. — CutestPenguin Hangout 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
QZ looks reliable to me. From their Welcome to Quartz page, Quartz is owned by Atlantic Media Co., the publisher of The Atlantic, National Journal, and Government Executive. The publisher of The Atlantic is good enough for me. To my continual consternation, we often accept far, far less. Msnicki ( talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Msnicki Even if we consider that as the reliable one, it fails the WP:ORG since coverage in depth in multiple sources is need. — CutestPenguin Hangout 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
For someone who claims "near-native" command of English, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with the language. I cited TWO RS in my !vote and that's definitely multiple. Msnicki ( talk) 19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Msnicki Read once, twice and thrice everything posted under this Afd. Let me quote the cause for you, the great Englishmen "your multiple" sources is actually not multiple as per Wikipedia's policy WP:IRS (give yourself sometime and read carefully WP:IRS). Note: ...press releases, interviews...reviews etc. is not always accepted as "the reliable source" even if it from those great sources.. And don't force me to drag your fluent English here. — CutestPenguin Hangout 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
If you're going to quote WP:IRS, it should be an actual quote, not something manufactured out of your imagination. That page simply does not say what you claim it does. You've made it up out of whole cloth. You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how specious but I have mine. I think these sources qualify and I don't think you know what you're talking about. I am done with you. Let's see what others have to say. Msnicki ( talk) 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
...press releases, interviews...reviews etc. is not always accepted as "the reliable source" even if it from those great sources., was not my personal views or imagination (you can verify the facts here WP:SIGCOV, Notability (media) and WP:3PARTY. Anyways lets wait and see what other say. Thanks — CutestPenguin Hangout 03:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The article is calming to be a news and media company but does not meets the Wikipedia's criteria for notability for organizations and companies nor it have significant coverage in reliable sources, except those press-releases and reviews which is again not treated as the reliable source.  D Mi 18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What's wrong with the Business Standard and Quartz articles? Msnicki ( talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

http://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/Blend-of-Courage-and-Bravery-5-Param-Vir-Chakra-Stories-Every-Indian-Must-Read-nid-187008-cid-1.html http://www.bangaloremirror.com/columns/sunday-read/Streaming-goes-mainstream/articleshow/48839477.cms http://www.mumbrella.asia/2015/06/outbrain-announces-scoopwhoop-storypick-and-indian-express-as-new-publishing-partners-in-india/ http://www.indiantelevision.com/mam/marketing/outbrain-expands-network-to-drive-growth-for-indian-publishers-150616 61.12.32.78 ( talk) 19:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Jimbo Wales: have not specified about the existence of the article on the Wikipedia, instead he emphasised that it is not possible legitimately to have an article about the subject. In fact he questioned about the background of the so called company. — CutestPenguin Hangout 12:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sir, Jimmy Wales typed " I do think that a small article could legitimately be written." Please check you might have read incorrectly. And even this was nine month back since then the company has become even more famous and notable. And can you please point to the parts that seem advertorial to you , I will rectify them and add neutral tone to them. P.S.-Sorry for my grammatical mistakes. I am not a native. Blessedhuman111 ( talk) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah! got it. — CutestPenguin Hangout 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Miss Earth titleholders. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Miss Earth runners-up and finalists

List of Miss Earth runners-up and finalists (  | 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:LISTCRUFT The Banner  talk 16:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Rugby AM

Rugby AM (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a television series produced by and aired on a single local television station in a single media market. WP:NMEDIA only grants a presumption of notability to nationally-distributed series, not to local ones — and the lack of sourcing means that this doesn't get to claim a WP:GNG pass in lieu of failing NMEDIA. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with UnitedHealth Group. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Logistics Health Incorporated

Logistics Health Incorporated (  | 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 insurance business with coverage all sourced to local daily paper; less than 1,000 employees, now a division of a bigger company. Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will userfy upon request for the purposes of merging useful information. Swarm 03:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Dating Violence Awareness Week

Dating Violence Awareness Week (  | 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 absolutely nothing to suggest improvement, there's no good move target and there haven't been any significant edits since the beginning in March 2009. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The article currently focuses solely on the awareness week in Singapore, but this is also recognized in the US. From Emily Fund: "In 2008, the US Senate unanimously apporoved S. Res. 710 declaring the first week of February as "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week," and on January 25, 2010, the Senate expanded the observance by declaring the month of February as "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness & Prevention Month" (S. Res. 373)." gobonobo + c 23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete most of this article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of Dating abuse. A mention of these "awareness weeks" may be made there. Kraxler ( talk) 00:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The article has been edited to completely change the scope and actual content, so I withdraw my !vote. Kraxler ( talk) 18:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Re-evaluating what the article looks like now, and apparently nothing more is coming, the article fails WP:NEVENT, with special mention of WP:GEOSCOPE. It was a local one-time event without WP:LASTING impact. Kraxler ( talk) 17:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep There are plenty of news articles and websites covering this in the US. The article can be significantly improved and quite easily with little effort. As for the AfD, the nominator is asking for a delete based on an editing issue and obviously did not do a basic search on the term. The nominator claims there is no info for improvement. It's a week in February recognized in Texas, Ohio and other states... it seems that it may have been federally recognized. Now if we're looking at it as a singapore-only event, it still may be notable! Not finding information on the web doesn't mean it's not important... much info about Singapore news is available only thru lexis nexus. In addition the amount of information I just turned up on Google alone should be enough to warrant its own article... esp if the scope is global. Also... the lack of improvement shouldn't warrant an AfD. Be bold and fix the article yourself or bring it to the attention of active interested WikiProjects. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

We already have an article on Dating abuse. It's not necessary, and fails the notability guidelines, to have a separate article on an "awareness week". Kraxler ( talk) 16:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If there are enough independent sources it doesn't fail notability. An awareness week can be notable. There seem to be a lot of articles on the topic in the US. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
This article is about an awareness week in Singapore, and has a single source from Singapore. If you want to write an article about several awareness weeks in different places, go right ahead, and see whether it passes AfD. We are concerned now with this article, as is. Kraxler ( talk) 03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
AfD should be used if there is no way to improve an article. As I've pointed out, there are several good ways to do so. AfD doesn't just mean looking at the article as it is now; articles may still be notable even if they do not contain the relevant existing information in them. See: WP:NEXIST The article needs copyedit. This should have taken place on the talk page of the article, not gone to AfD. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Feel free to improve the article, it's allowed during AfD, but please do address the WP:CONTENTFORK problem. Also, stand-alone notability of this "event" has not been shown yet. Kraxler ( talk) 15:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: These events are distinct from the general concept of dating abuse; they reflect activism to address the problem. Yes, the article needs work, but deletion is not the answer. This is a women's event in Singapore, which in and of itself is remarkable. Clear evidence of third-party coverage, and no doubt more out there if anyone can address the language barrier. Frankly, I'm kind of offended by Kraxler's tone that implies that this is an irrelevant event of no consequence. We have a lot of problems with systemic bias on wikipedia and this dismissive tone toward both women's issues and an Asian topic suggests this is a factor to be considered. Montanabw (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I wish !voters would stick to the issue, instead of accusing others of bad faith. My !vote was cast when the article lokked like this. Megalibrarygirl has edited it in the meanwhile, but needed to be reminded that speculating about what an article could look like is not equivalent to actually making an article show its notability and stand-alone usefulness. Kraxler ( talk) 17:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Notability depends on being shown. In this case, the article was a content fork. Content forks are usually deleted for reasons other than notability. Please don't mix up apples and oranges. Kraxler ( talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge See WP:CONTENTFORK! This issue needs to be solved before we look at notability and references. MrWooHoo ( talk) 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Local events of this sort are not worth merging to the general article, towards which it makes no contribution whatsoever. This is essentially a PR for the event, and there's a good case for deleting it as G11. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This doesn't even approach the notability criteria for a stand-alone article. It is a purely local event, written purely to promote the first (and only?) one in Singapore in 2009. In case no one has noticed, there is no mention out there (or in the article) of any further such weeks in Singapore, despite the claim in the article that it is an "annual event". I've done a pretty thorough search, but if anyone finds sources indicating that it has been held in Singapore and received received significant coverage in the ensuing years, I'd be happy to change my mind. A brief summary, minus the padding can be added to Teen dating violence, which as it is, is tagged (and rightly so) as not representing a worldwide view of the subject. That atrociously organized article, full of original research and written like an essay, gives massively undue weight to the US, with two lines about the UK, one line about Canada and... er... that's it. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
On a related note, in Singapore "Dating Violence Awareness Week" was the second week in February. In the US, "Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" is apparently the first week in February, and Chicago seems to have organized its own version of "Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" for the third week October. A separate article on Dating violence awareness with an international scope might be possible, but that's not what this article is (or even can be, given its title). Voceditenore ( talk) 18:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. At this point we have verifiability without notability. Even if one evaluates it as a fork, it should be merged back to its parent, but as has been mentioned, this non-notable content is of no benefit there. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can find no references to support this (the event in Singapore) beyond the 2009 launch. If such references exist in other languages, maybe the route to take is to create this article in the appropriate language version of Wikipedia, then have it translated to English if it then meets our notability requirements. I would also support a move to something like Dating violence awareness/advocacy as previously suggested, with a more global view, which I would consider to be a more encylopaedic approach; or merge this into Dating abuse with the option of spinning it out later to a seperate article if it becomes too unwieldy. Derek Andrews ( talk) 11:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Incubate - an option I wasn't aware of until now, per WP:ATD-I. It would seem to me to be a way to enable those who see potential in an article of some nature on this topic to work on it without threat of deletion. Derek Andrews ( talk) 12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The appropriate place for almost all "awareness weeks" is a brief mention in the topic article, in this case Dating abuse. There is nothing much to say about the week, except possible lists of misc. dates. See WP:NOT. There is a lot to say about the topic, and that article is where it should be said. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Massimiliano Cerchi

Massimiliano Cerchi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searched found nothing good at all to suggest improvement and better independent notability with the best results of all my searches here and, as an orphan, I'm not seeing a good move target for this article from February 2007. Pinging taggers @ The JPS and Geniac:. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Valerie Garcia

Valerie Garcia (  | 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 insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 06:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Chosen Dance Company

Chosen Dance Company (  | 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'm not entirely sure if this is notable as my searches found no considerably good coverage here, here and here (all three were the best results). Notifying author Benjancewicz. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Abilis Solutions

Abilis Solutions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches found nothing aside from press releases and other minor coverage here, here, here and here (searches at Montreal Gazette, browser and CBC found nothing). I was also happening to notice this has stayed since November 2008 and, although it has been edited since, it has not been significant improvement thus less chances why to keep longer. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

David John Jeffery

David John Jeffery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author of unclear notability. Reliable, third party sources have not been forthcoming. Josh Milburn ( talk) 11:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 13:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 13:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Lifehouse International Church. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Lifehouse International Church Taipei

Lifehouse International Church Taipei (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy notability criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), especially it lacks reports from independent sources Jlicy ( talk) 14:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 15:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 15:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 15:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Merging is a good idea indeed. I don't see much salvageable content though, for lack of independent references. Jlicy ( talk) 11:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The WP:SELFSOURCE information from this article can be used as sources in the merged to article, just can't be the source for notability for this article-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 19:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Any redirect is a separate editorial decision.  Sandstein  07:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Iran-IAEA side deals

Iran-IAEA side deals (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a WP:POINTY fork of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action which was created by a declared SPA User:Iran nuclear weapons 2 whose User page claims his account is a valid alt account because he's afraid of being assassinated by Iran if his primary account is exposed ... I'm pretty sure VAJA has better things to do than go after Wikipedia editors in (Redacted) ... BlueSalix ( talk) 16:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

OH sheesh, the "redacted" bit was Wasilla, Alaska ... see: [37]. I note this just so we aren't reinforcing "Iran Nuclear Weapons 2" ultra-disruptive, Islamaphobic paranoia/James Bond fantasy that someone actually knew where he was located and Iranian commandos are descending on his home at this very moment because of an edit he made on WP. (It is slightly concerning this has to be explained.) BlueSalix ( talk) 06:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge -- the whole thing has a strong feel of being a fork, of a kind that it usually best merged back to the main article. I have not considered whether there is anything worth merging (as opposed to a plain redirect). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No meeting of the minds occurred here, and there were reasonable policy arguments advanced by each side. The article has been made more neutral, and I encourage editors to aggressively ensure that it remains so prior to the election. No prejudice to renomination should the subject not prevail. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ken McDonald (politician)

Ken McDonald (politician) (  | 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 person notable as the mayor of a town of 25K — which is not large enough to confer automatic inclusion rights on a mayor under WP:NPOL — and as an as yet unelected candidate in a future election — which is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia if they haven't already passed an inclusion rule for some other reason. The sourcing here fails to adequately demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm for a small-town mayor (e.g. by virtue of having become well-known outside of his local area), so there's no strong basis for an exemption from the 50K-minimum test for mayors, and candidates do not get articles just for being candidates — so he'll absolutely be eligible for an article if he wins his seat on October 19, but nothing here adequately demonstrates that he's earned an article today. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in October if he wins. Bearcat ( talk) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The Nalcor controversy would qualify as WP:BLP1E if it was a major controversy, since it is the only thing that got him a little extra attention. If it was a minor controversy it's still part of WP:ROUTINE, minor controversies happen everywhere, even in the smallest populated places. Did any national neswpaper report on the Nalcor controversy? Kraxler ( talk) 13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
This article doesn't meet the criteria for WP:BLP1E. McDonald is not just notable for one thing, since he derives coverage and notability from his elected office as well as events he did in that office (e.g. Nalcor). As mayor of a major provincial municipality, and now a federal candidate, he's not a low profile individual, but a very public one, which BLP1E explicitly does not apply to ("WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals."). Yahoo New Canada saw fit to mirror the CBC articles on Nalcor [38], [39]. Though lack of national coverage (especially where there's significant amounts of provincial and local coverage) doesn't make it routine as defined in WP:ROUTINE. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 19:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I suggest you read again WP:NPOL # 2 "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". And WP:NPOL # 3 "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The refs in the article are not in-depth on McDonald, and a few stories in local newspapers/TV can not be considered "significant coverage". Kraxler ( talk) 19:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
As I've noted throughout this AfD, my position (backed by a reading of POLOUTCOMES) is that as regionally important mayor, McDonald counts as an major local political figure. The article clearly goes beyond his electoral record and cites instances where's he's made provincial and regional new (e.g. Nova Scotian news and Atlantic Canada news for his construction projects), which I think constitutes significant and independent coverage. The NALCOR articles are entirely about McDonald's role in the dispute, and of the other sources, one is an interview with the leading provincial paper and another is with a 1v1 interview with NTV, a leading provincial television network. These are IMHO in-depth sources. Even if there is no national level coverage, the depth and frequency of provincial sources (yes by accident of geography, CBS is on the Avalon Peninsula along with St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, so all major provincial news outlets are technically local), combined with his position as a regionally important mayor are enough to justify keeping the article. Since we fundamentally disagree on the definition of the terms, it'll be up to the closing admin to decide. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 02:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Interviews with the subject in media don't count toward satisfying WP:GNG, because they involve the subject talking about himself. To count toward GNG, a source has to involve other people talking about him. Bearcat ( talk) 17:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I brought up the interviews to show that there were clearly in-depth, non-cursory coverage of McDonald among the refs. All the other sources in the article are independent, non-interviews and are mostly similarly in-depth. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Probably the most ridiculous nomination I've ever seen; the man is clearly notable, has received substantial coverage in the media during his mayoralty, and is the political candidate for a major position. The sources "adequately demonstrate" that he deserves an article. And, by the way, your link, WP:NPOL mentions nothing about a mayor needing 50,000 residents to be notable. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 18:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
NPOL # 2 says notable are "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. This is a minor local politician, major local politicians hold office in a capital city or in a city with a million inhabitants, or in cities known all over the world. I've never heard about Conception Bay South before, and I'm a geography buff. Sorry, but guidelines should guide us, not be treated with contempt. Kraxler ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
We have lots of articles on minor politicians who don't hold office in a capital city or in a city with a million inhabitants or cities that are known all over the world, see Rhode Island House of Representatives and scroll down to the list of members, nearly all of them are blue links. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 00:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Those are state-level politicians, not local ones — a state legislature is an entirely different level of office, with an entirely different set of applicable notability standards, than a city council is. Kraxler is mostly correct about what our standards for local politicians are — to be fair, our standard for mayors isn't actually as restrictive as our standard for city councillors is, but CBS still isn't large or prominent enough to pass our standard for mayors and it's in no way equivalent to a state or provincial legislature. And you can't just read WP:NPOL and think you fully understand our notability standards for politicians — you also need to read WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearcat ( talk) 03:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"is the political candidate for a major position" carries no weight under Wikipedia's inclusion standards. As already explained, being an unelected candidate for a seat in the House of Commons is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — if you cannot adequately show that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before he became a candidate for a seat in the HoC, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And no, you haven't adequately shown that he garnered sufficient notability from the mayoralty either. Bearcat ( talk) 03:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Talk about deletionism, those are essays, not policies. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 04:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Read WP:ONLYESSAY if you think that assertion carries any weight whatsoever. Bearcat ( talk) 04:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The point is I don't agree with the essay. Notability of McDonald is established by his references in reliable sources. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 04:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Not if those reliable sources are covering him in the context of a role that doesn't qualify him for an encyclopedia article, it isn't. Local media have an obligation to cover local politics, so coverage of his candidacy for an office that he hasn't been elected to yet falls under WP:ROUTINE, not WP:GNG — and once you discount those sources, what's left isn't even approaching the lower edges of the volume of coverage of his mayoralty that it would take to grant him NPOL #3 or a GNG-based exemption from our minimum population standards for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 04:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
User:SuperCarnivore591, NPOL is a guideline, not an essay. POLOUTCOMES is a mirror of the past (aka "precedent"), not somebody's personal opinion (as most essays may be). ROUTINE and GNG are guidelines too. Accusing people of trying to delete an article for no other reason than being "deletionists" violates WP:AGF which is a fundamental principle (two steps above guideline). Kraxler ( talk) 15:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The fact of the matter is that too many people have strict standards for article inclusion, such as a mayor needing 50,000 residents for an article. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 15:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Standards follow consensus, established by the community. If the subject fails the standards, there's not much we can do about it. We have actually (currently at AfD) articles on city councillors who got less than 300 votes in a Chilean city, and the author thinks that these are extremely important people. So, some editors use their own standards when it comes to include their favorite subjects here, but everybody is supposed to bow to the community standards. That's why we have guidelines. Kraxler ( talk) 15:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
And POLOUTCOMES says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". In this case, the mayor of the second largest municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador would in fact be a major local figure in the province, whereas the same would not necessarily be true for a mayor of a similarly sized municipality in a more populous province like Ontario or Quebec. Since coverage of McDonald in the article goes beyond the fact that he's CBS's mayor, I don't think POLOUTCOMES applies here.-- -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia grants no weight to where a municipality ranks in any given list of municipalities. The only automatic "exemption" that's granted for a city below 50K is if it's the capital of a state, province or country. And the only way the coverage goes anywhere beyond the fact of being a mayor is into his as yet unelected candidacy for a more notable office. He'll be eligible for an article if he wins the federal seat, but nothing here gets him over any of our inclusion rules now. Bearcat ( talk) 04:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that POLOUTCOMES disagrees with you, because it specifically mentions "regional prominence" as a factor in evaluating AfD candidates. A municipality of 25k in a province where it's the second largest of its kind has regional prominence. A similarly sized one in a province where it would't break the top 50 municipalities (e.g. Ontario) would have considerably less regional prominence. The article goes into some detail about events during his term as mayor as expected of an article on a mayor. My position is that based on his current elected position and the available sources, he's notable enough for his own article. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 19:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"Regional prominence" is not defined as subjective to the relative size of other municipalities in the same area; it's defined by longstanding AFD consensus as either (a) a minimum population of 50K, or (b) special allowance for a few cities (e.g. Charlottetown) which fall below that figure but are a state, provincial or federal capital. Absent one of those two conditions, it's either "more notable than the norm for cities of its size, for some substantively nationalized and well-sourced reason", or bust. Bearcat ( talk) 17:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If "regional prominence" is not defined as prominence in the region, than the phrase should be removed from POLOUTCOMES and explicitly replaced with the requirements that you and Kraxler have repeated throughout this AfD. No more of this, "these have always been the unwritten rules", when essays like POLOUTCOMES are the places for such matters of longstanding AfD consensus. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You're the one concocting your own self-serving definition of "regional prominence", not me. The problem with your interpretation is that even a village of less than 100 people can be argued as "regionally prominent", if one defines "region" narrowly enough — which is why AFD has a longstanding standard, fully established by thousands of prior AFDs, for what size of community is or isn't accepted as satisfying "regional prominence". And accordingly, it's not within your right to dictate what the people who are familiar with the established precedent are or aren't allowed to say "more of this" or not — consensus makes the rules here, not you. Bearcat ( talk) 23:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That's a strawman; no one is advocating that broad of an interpretation of "regionally prominent." I've said that CBS is regionally prominent because it's the second largest municipality in a top-level sub-national polity (in this case, a Canadian province). I don't think this is an unreasonable exception to the 50k population or capital consensus on a case by case basis where reliable sources exist. I also don't think it's unreasonable that if the 50k population/capital is the precedent set by most past cases, that it should be stated as such in POLOUTCOMES, which is meant to be a repository of common AfD outcomes. I was not trying to dictate what others can and cannot say, I was just expressing my unfavourable opinion of arguments that are essentially "this is the longstanding precedent" without linking to a policy/guideline/essay to back those specific claims about precedent. I apologize if I came off as trying to silence other participants.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Close call. Elected mayor of the second largest town in a province — still small, so borderline under the Special Notability Guideline for politicians. I am satisfied that this is a GNG pass based on footnotes showing on the page, however — he's a public figure. Carrite ( talk) 04:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mainly per above. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources per GNG, so it should be kept. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete He's getting CBC coverage (which I assume is national) but I agree with Bearcat that as only a candidate for a country-wide election he is on tenuous grounds for a WP article. As a winner of that election, he could well be notable. But if he loses, will this article be revised? Deleted? Or will it just linger here? That to me is the main reason to wait until after the election. LaMona ( talk) 04:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify, while the CBC as a whole is certainly a national entity, the coverage in question isn't coming from the national news division — it's from their local news bureau in St. John's, so it doesn't prove that he's actually getting coverage anywhere outside of his own local area yet. Bearcat ( talk) 16:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The "local" news bureau in St. John's serves the entire province of Newfoundland and Labrador. While it's not the national bureau, it's also not as local as the Shoreline News source, which is a CBS local paper. Regional CBC bureaus combine a mix of local journalism and serious journalism that could be used to show notability. -- -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
There's a difference between "getting provincewide coverage because he's actually a figure of genuinely provincewide notability" and "getting provincewide coverage only because the media outlet in question only has one bureau in the province, and thus every single story they cover automatically goes provincewide whether it's actually of any meaningful provincewide interest or not". McDonald is in the latter camp, not the former. The CBC is obviously a reliable source in principle — but by virtue of the way the CBC is structured, all CBC local bureau coverage, not just in St. John's but everywhere else in Canada too, automatically gets redistributed to at least half of its entire province, so the local bureaux can't in and of themselves prove that a person of local notability has passed the "covered outside his own local area" hump. Bearcat ( talk) 17:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, regional CBC bureaus produce banal local news, but they also produce quality journalism. Doing a rudimentary google search of the CBC.ca site also shows that McDonald gets about twice as much coverage as other Newfoundland mayors except for the mayor of St. Johns. This argument also ignores the coverage from non-CBC sources like the St. John's Telegram, Atlantic Construction News, Newfoundland Television, the Nova Scotia Business Journal. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The quality of the journalism that the CBC does isn't the issue (go ahead and just try to find where I said anything even slightly disparaging of the CBC's journalism as a matter of principle.) The issue is the scope of notability that the journalism in question demonstrates — the fact that NTV and the CBC's station in St. John's have repeater transmitters outside of St. John's as well does not automatically nationalize their local coverage of local personalities and issues in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 23:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
My point is that because the output of the regional bureaus is a mix of local journalism and issues of provincial importance, judging scope isn't as well-defined as you make it out to be. As you said you can't prove that a person covered by those bureaus is covered outside the local area. However you also can't just dismiss all coverage from the regional bureau as not showing that the mayor of CBS gets coverage from more than the local area. Actions taken by McDonald as mayor have been published in non-Newfoundland journals like the Nova Scotia Business Journal and Atlantic Construction News. McDonald also gets widespread coverage at the provincial level, including more CBC coverage than any other non-St. John's mayor. I think these demonstrate his regional importance and that national coverage isn't necessary in this case. The case of Christine O'Donnell is irrelevant because O'Donnell was just a candidate and never held any elected office of the mayoral level of higher, whereas McDonald has. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
All candidates in all elections always generate local coverage, so that type of coverage does not contribute to getting a person over WP:GNG — an as-yet-unelected candidate for office gets over GNG only if the coverage nationalizes in a Christine O'Donnell sort of way. And there isn't enough coverage of him specifically in the context of his mayoralty to grant him an exemption from the fact that our inclusion standards for mayors require a minimum population of 50K — they are not based on where the municipality ranks in a list of the province's municipalities arrayed by population, but are based solely on the raw population figure itself. Bearcat ( talk) 03:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You keep saying a mayor needs at least 50,000 residents in his town/city to be eligible enough for inclusion, yet haven't provided a link to a Wikipedia policy that says so. That's because it is not true. Nowhere in our policies does it say that. Please provide a link to this so-called "inclusion standard." A person being a mayor just needs to generate sufficient, third-party independent coverage to be considered notable, not to have a minimum of 50,000 residents. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You're right. There's no requirement for 50k, it's more like a million inhabitants, except provincial/state/national capitals. And there's WP:GEOSCOPE, I asked up there, and will ask again, has any national or foreign newspaper reported on the Nalcor controversy? If not, it remains local ROUTINE coverage. On a side note, I find it odd, that an editor of one month of Wiki presence is trying to lecture experienced AfD participants on the guidelines. Kraxler ( talk) 18:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That's quite an arbitrarily high requirement. GEOSCOPE applies only to events, and in any case, McDonald has gotten repeated coverage in several reputable provincial news sources. An editor of one month who's made nearly 2k edits is more than welcome to participate in AFD discussions and argue for a side. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 20:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Kraxler, you still haven't provided links to any policies that a mayor would need 50,000 inhabitants to have a Wikipedia article in provincial/state/national capitals, much less 1,000,000 (!) for mayors who serve every other kind of population. I know the 1,000,000 figure definitely can't be right; I can't imagine any such bogus requirement. Notability is not based on raw numbers. And another thing, please don't try to wikilawyer out of this by saying I can't criticize your AfD actions because I've only been here for a month (I've been here longer than that). SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
There is no absolute (or actually any) number written in the guideline, my comment was based on WP:POLOUTCOMES, precedent and experience in AfD discussions. That doesn't bar you from arguing for the contrary. Back to the main issue, this seeming to be a very borderline case, I'm giving the subject the benefit of the doubt, and strike my !vote. Kraxler ( talk) 14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
50K is an established consensus established by a wealth of past AFD discussions on mayors of similarly-sized municipalities; those past discussions have indeed established a long-standing precedent that in a city of this size, coverage of a mayor has to nationalize, demonstrating significance far beyond the purely local, before they can be granted an override of the population size criterion. It doesn't have to be explicitly written into policy to be relevant and true; one needs to also be familiar with the conventions and precedents that AFD has established, and a 50K minimum for a mayor to get "automatically in because mayor" rights, with exceptions granted only if you can properly source "way more notable than usual, because national coverage", is one of those established precedents. Bearcat ( talk) 16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Kraxler, 1,000,000+ is the approximate minimum standard for city councillors, not for mayors. The minimum standard for mayors is considerably lower than that. Bearcat ( talk) 16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm quite experienced in AfD matters, but I wasn't aware of the 50K consensus for mayors. Thanks for telling me about it. However, I think it is too low, and I expect future arguments about notability-by-size in future AfDs, considering the appearance of new users at these dabates who are likewise unaware of such consensus, and no written rule which specifies this number. We'll have to be patient, like Sisyphus. Kraxler ( talk) 17:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The blatant campaign advertising was my prime concern, as can be seen in my first post, way up there. Maybe the article should be trimmed down to half the current size. The elections will be held in a month, and we'll be older and wiser by then. If he wins the article stands anyway, if not... Kraxler ( talk) 17:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I've cut down the article text by about 40% and removed all material that I think could be seen as promotional. Although it's not a valid deletion argument, projections for the electoral district McDonald is running in gave him nearly a 90% chance of winning the riding. -- -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Neelakshi Singh

Neelakshi Singh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Longtime (February 2010), unsourced and basically nn-notable bio with my searches finding absolutely nothing good aside from some here (BehindWoods link is found once at News). There's not much info and it's vague about her roles and career. Notifying the only still active tagger Shirik. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete without any further indication of notability I can't find how this meets WP:GNG (or any other notability guideline). -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 02:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Timothy Christian (film producer)

Timothy Christian (film producer) (  | 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 Google test. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: Here is Google Search and Google News Search by me. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. Article revamped as per WP:HEYMANN. MannTinsa ( talk) 05:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC. Coverage is not substantial, none of the cited sources are actually about the subject. One sentence mentions (trivial coverage) in articles about other topics does not demonstrate notability. dissolve talk 06:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Patient ombudsman

Patient ombudsman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 08:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
This needs better coverage for a better article as there's currently not much. SwisterTwister talk 16:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. The only editors to argue for keeping provided no policy-based arguments. I also note that all the keep !voters have extremely limited editing history, and one of them has been indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

David A Lickstein

David A Lickstein (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially non-notable doctor. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources are mainly minor, mostly of the directory or listing type. He is briefly quoted in a couple of short (1-2 paragraph) articles. Many of the sources are from organizations he belongs to. (Jupiter Meds, in particular.) The publications that laud him are not significant. So we are lacking reliable sources, and there is nothing to show that he is notable. There is an air of promotion about the article. LaMona ( talk) 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The "Top Doctor" awards are far from establishing notability. This list (of a couple of dozen doctors in a small geographic area) comes from a company that names thousands of "top doctors" every year (one article said 6,000 [42]). Hospitals pay to have their doctors publicly visible in these lists. [43] While this particular company is considered to be honest, being one of thousands in this list is like being listed by the Better Business Bureau. It helps consumers, but it's not a sign of notability. LaMona ( talk) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - I don't feel very strongly about this case, but the sourcing is quite weak. Several cites are to a regulatory website, one to a lifestyle magazine, and the others to industry publications. So can we have more tests, doc? Bearian ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can see element of notability in some of the references. However, the write may be asked to source for more usable references to boost the article. Odogu ( talk) 12:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Userfy. Searches did not turn up anything to suggest this person meets the notability criteria. But it's a new article, and the article's creator might be able to turn up something I missed. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Userfy Per Onel15969, references don't prove WP:GNG and should be userfy(ed?) for more development. MrWooHoo ( talk) 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete., and absolutely do not userify. This is straightforward promotionalism for a plastic surgeon, by a SPA, and should have been removed as G11. There is nothing here to indicate that a proper article will ever be possible.I see no valid references; everything here is a essentially a press release; a "Top Doctor" reference from the "Palm Beacher Magazine" is not notability--those sort of publications have no authority whatsoever. If it is, it would need to be done by someone with the obvious COI here. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Sources do not assert notability, as most of them solely mention the doctor and don't go into much detail about the doctor himself. There's also WP:NPOV issues as well given the wording in the "plastic surgery career" section. Aerospeed ( Talk) 13:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Pendulum Films

Pendulum Films (  | 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 seek reliable sources about the importance of this subject. TheGGoose ( talk) 21:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Gabby Best

Gabby Best (  | 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 an actress and writer, making no substantive claim of notability that would satisfy either WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR and citing no reliable source coverage — it just asserts her existence, and parks on her IMDb profile as its sole "source". And, in fact, if you compare the statement of who she is in the IMDb profile to the statement of who she is in this article, it becomes painfully clear that the creator directly imported the IMDb statement and rephrased it just enough to avoid a literal WP:COPYVIO, without actually adding anything else to it beyond a virtual replication of the IMDb profile. An actress does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because she exists — it takes reliable source coverage about her to get her in here, but none has been shown. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Aquarian dawn

Aquarian dawn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found nothing about this subject, at least any mention of it, besides a Soundcloud account and maybe somewhere in MySpace. TheGGoose ( talk) 23:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Henry McPherrar

Henry McPherrar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardly found anything about this person and his works that would have this article sustained in Wikipedia. This is the only source I can find, which includes a mention. TheGGoose ( talk) 05:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If this isn't a hoax, this is the best kept pulp fiction gem of all time. (Well, ok, I know a few others). I can't find any evidence of his existence, doing searches only on his last name since his first name seems to vary from Henry to Hank and more. No evidence of his books in libraries or bookstores. No evidence of his Hollywood work in IMDB. I really hope that someone hits the jackpot and finds the hidden cache of information that will bring this person to light. Until then... LaMona ( talk) 04:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and I almost feel this almost qualified for speedy as my searches found nothing good at all and mostly simply mirrors. Pinging tagger I dream of horses for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Google brings up nothing useable, like LaMona even searching using the surname only reveals nil worldcat library holdings [45]. With his apparent prodigious output ("For the next 3 decades he would write 3 to 4 novels a year.") i would expect something to appear at least on bookseller/auction sites but even searching these proved fruitless (probably because of small print runs his books are rare and highly collectable ). ps. what is the "1947 booker award"? Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete pretty funny, actually. But, delete, since it is a hoax and all. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Luana (singer)

Luana (singer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches found nothing and, based from the article's current content, it's unlikely she ever got much attention much less likely enough to improve this article. It's worth noting this has stayed basically the same since starting in February 2005 and there's no obvious move target. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Arizona Diamondbacks first-round draft picks. MBisanz talk 00:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Bobby Borchering

Bobby Borchering (  | 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 minor league baseball player. Wizardman 03:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The third source provided is pretty good, and puts his notability on the border at least. Not going to withdraw, but I'm now neutral bordering on keep after a close review of the provided sources and a closer check for others out there. Wizardman 21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That should certainly be the default if he doesn't pass individual notability. Rlendog ( talk) 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) -- Orduin Discuss 21:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Association of Late-Deafened Adults

Association of Late-Deafened Adults (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches found several results here, here, here, here (Scholar, passing mentions), here and here but nothing to make considerable, even minimally, improvement and there's hardly any significant edits since March 2004 and no good move target. Although it seems fairly well known in its field and has made recommendations for hearing enhancement measures in theatres, there's not much else. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep perhaps a ref improve tag, but plenty of sources to do an informative article, which I did update somewhat.
  1. Seibel, Tom (27 October 1990). "Conference tackles problems of adults who lose hearing". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  2. CIEPLY, MICHAEL (21 November 2014). "Theater Owners Join Effort to Add Captioning to Films". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  3. Loudon, Bennett J. (3 December 2014). "Feds planning new rules on movie captions". USA Today. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  4. "New software for Google Glass provides captions for hard-of-hearing users" (2 October 2014). Phys.org. 2 October 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2015. "Foley and the students are working with the Association of Late Deafened Adults in Atlanta to improve the program."

-- 009o9 ( talk) 21:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The references above are places where the organization is quoted or mentioned (sometimes in a single sentence) on a general issue, not places which discuss the organization. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Google books and Google scholar are better places to look for this sort of thing than the popular press. The article does need rewriting. Two references: Woodcock, Kathryn (1996). "The Association of Late-Deafened Adults: Rationale, Highlights, History" (PDF). In Mervin D. Garretson (ed.). Deafness: Historical Perspectives. National Association of the Deaf. p. 155to160. ISBN  978-0-913072-84-4. and Dalebout, Susan (2009). The Praeger Guide to Hearing and Hearing Loss: Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention. ABC-CLIO. p. 228. ISBN  978-0-313-36476-1..— Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma ( talkcontribs) 04:03, 31 August 2015
  • Weak Delete - a tough one. There are a bunch of sources, but the only ones that seem to cover the organization beyond a mention, citation, or affiliated person, are primary sources (e.g. the one posted by StarryGranma directly above). I'd prefer a merge, but don't see any suitable target ( post-lingual deafness?) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources exist, but concern has been raised that they do not substantially cover the organization. Another relist is needed to come to consensus. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
MrWooHoo Well, FWIW, the author was a SPA and never seemed to come again last March 2004 (and hardly anyone else has significantly edited the article enough) and chances are very likely they're not returning. If it was userfied, that would simply host it and someone else would have to attend to it. SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Dalebout, Susan (2009). The Praeger Guide to Hearing and Hearing Loss: Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention. Westport, Connecticut: ABC-CLIO. p. 228. ISBN  0313364761. Retrieved 2015-09-14.

      The book notes on page 128:

      Another support/advocacy organization, The Association of Late-Deafened Adults (ALDA), was founded in 1987. For the most part, its members are adults who grew up hearing but are now unable to understand speech without visual aids such as speechreading, sign language, or captioning. The organization's goal is to advocate for relevant legislation, rehabilitation programs, employment opportunities, and communication services. The organization also provides personal support to late-deafened adults as they adjust to becoming deaf. Networking opportunities are offered through local chapters and an annual conference. The association publishes a quarterly newsletter "that blends humor and sensitivity along with first-hand accounts of the frequent absurdities of deafened life.

    2. Dumais, Christian A. (1991-02-08). "Group helps those with hearing loss". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.

      The article notes:

      ALDA, the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, is an international group that recently permitted Ms. Ward to open a chapter in Pasco County

      ...

      The association is for people 21 and older who have a mild or severe hearing impairment and need support. People who attend ALDA meetings can communicate through lip reading, sign language or even written notes.

      ALDA was started by Bill Graham, an editor at World Book Encyclopedia in Chicago, after he suddenly became deaf. His loss left him depressed until he entered a support group to deal with the problem.

      ...

      In 1987, Bill Graham received a book titled Who's Who in Science, and thumbed through its pages finding people who he thought to be deaf, and then contacted them. Graham's predictions were mostly right, and he met with the people to discuss plans for an adult deafness group.

      ALDA's first chapter opened in Chicago in 1987 with the help of audiologists, psychiatrists and other professionals who could work well with the deaf.

      Today, there are chapters of ALDA in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France Australia, and now, Pasco County.

    3. Zaslow, Jeffrey (1991-11-07). "Swallowed by silence, they work to adjust". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.

      The article notes:

      On the day I visited, Mike, Karen and another friend, Stanley Gadsden, 32, were making plans to attend the third annual ALDA International Conference, which began Wednesday and continues through Sunday at the Westin Hotel in Chicago.

      ALDA is a four-year-old group with 1,200 members, all of whom became deaf after childhood. Though the late-deafened make up 75 percent of the 1.8 million deaf population, they are often the most isolated. People who were born deaf view them as part of the hearing world. And people who hear view them as deaf.

      ...

      I. King Jordan, president of Gallaudet, the university for deaf students, lost his hearing in a motorcycle accident at age 21. He's giving the keynote address at this year's ALDA conference. In a speech to ALDA in 1989, he talked of how the hearing world interacts with the late-deafened: "The belief is out there that, if we deaf people would simply try a little bit harder, if we would really concentrate, then we would be able to understand. If we really worked at it, we could hear again."

    4. Leigh, Irene (2009). A Lens on Deaf Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 46–47. ISBN  0195320662. Retrieved 2015-09-14.

      The book notes on pages 46–47:

      Those who acknowledge that they have moved to a different phase and need to get on with life may be amenable to seeking out contact with other late-deafened persons through venues such as the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc. (ALDA) ( http://www.alda.org, 2008) in their search for a sense of fellowship. At ALDA meetings, attention to diverse communication needs, including signed English, spoken language with speeechreading and assistive listening devices, note writing, and CART [Communication Access Real Time Translation] ( http://www.alda.org, 2008), draws these late-deafened individuals together. Conclusions from data obtained from 97 late-deafened participants in 12 focus groups confirm that while hearing community affiliations remain strong, meetings with ALDA members are valued (Goulder, 1997).

    5. Stenross, Barbara (2010). Missed Connections. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. p. 126. ISBN  1439903905. Retrieved 2015-09-14.

      The book notes on page 126 in its "Resources" section:

      ALDA

      The Association of Late Deafened Adults (ALDA) is a self-help organization for people who have lost their hearing after the development of speech. The organization was founded in Chicago in 1987.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Association of Late-Deafened Adults to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 03:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There's sufficient here for notability of this national organization. This is one of the few recent times I've agreed with Cunard in these discussions, at least about the conclusion, though I think some of his sources are mere mentions. Books about a condition such as this and patient websites tend to include all posssibly relevant organizations, and I consider them mere listings. The 1st ref. given by StarryGrandma, however, is substantial enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ DGG: above you !voted to delete, here you're saying keep. I assume you changed your mind and intended to strike your earlier comment? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
struck. As I said, Cunard and SG convinced me. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Spencer Mallinson

Spencer Mallinson (  | 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 musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The article is written in the first person, cites a single brief namecheck in a book, and rests his notability on having very briefly been in a notable band — however, NMUSIC permits a musician whose notability is band-dependent to have a separate standalone article only if they can be reliably sourced as having independent notability for something independent of the band (such as solo albums). And looking at the band's article, his membership was extremely brief at best — the founding member that Mallinson claims to have replaced was actually replaced within two weeks by a permanent new member who wasn't Mallinson, so even if Mallinson's claim is true he was in the band for a grand total of 10-14 days at most. And all of this occurred before the band had even recorded its first album, meaning they weren't even notable yet. NMUSIC normally recommends a redirect to the band, but I don't think that's appropriate in this case, as his membership in the band isn't even hinted at in the band's article. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. While AFD is not cleanup, it seems like the votes are for deleting this particular article. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

List of songs recorded by D12

List of songs recorded by D12 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A trivial list. Redundant to D12 discography. Koala15 ( talk) 15:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per rationale given by another editor at the last nomination, "The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles" and my comment at the Snoop Dogg nomination by the same editor which reads, "The nominator has given his opinion why the whole of the "List of songs recorded by Foo" may be considered for deletion but has failed to explain why the Snoop Dogg list should be singled out. If the nominator thinks that the category should be deleted he should nominate accordingly, singling out certain artists according to personal taste does not benefit Wikipedia." -- Richhoncho ( talk) 18:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Here's some figures.
Ariana Grande discography mentions 29 of the entries in the article.
Meaning that 15 songs from the "List of songs" article are not covered in the discography.
Meaning that 64 songs from the "List of songs" article are not covered in the discography.
If one of the two articles were to be AfD'd, it would surely be the Ariana Grande list, no? Do you still stand by your claim that this article is redundant to the discography? Strong keep'. Azealia911 talk 19:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Richhoncho I'm not sure if the genre of the artists brought to AfD has anything to do with it, but they all seem to be very basic, messy, unsourced lists. I sense that having them deleted is an easy cleanup, a way of sweeping them under the rug and getting them out of the way without actually working on them if you get what I mean. Azealia911 talk 11:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Azealia911. I am not sure I would call any of the articles basic or messy, but I concur they are unreferenced, but that's not grounds for deletion either. If the nominator wishes to point out I have made an error in my accusation I would apologise and retract my "rapper" comment, although to be fair one of the nominations was for a "hiphop artist". -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Koala15:, could you please give an indication as to weather you wish to proceed with this AfD? If you withdraw, it can speedily be closed as nobody else has !voted delete. Just suggesting it as opposed to letting this drag on until it's closed in a few days. That is, unless you still think the article should be deleted. Thanks, Azealia911 talk 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Kraxler I repeat what I said before, are lists like this one or this one cruft? Considering they also have corresponding discography articles? Azealia911 talk 01:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
If you ask me whether WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, I'll answer yes. But, your two examples have a reference appended to each song, and the unlinked entries do not grossly outnumber the blue-linked songs. Kraxler ( talk) 01:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah, the ever over-used otherstuffexists, Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's law. An articles current state should not be viable reasoning for deletion, but its potential. Is the article a dire mess? Completely. Does it have the potential to be a complete, referenced list? Yes. Azealia911 talk 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Yelawolf for what happens to unsourced FANCRUFT/LISTCRUFT. Kraxler ( talk) 02:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Then why should that Afd take precedence over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Tupac Shakur, which resulted in keep? Or the more recent BIG K.R.I.T keep decision? It's all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and quite irrelevant to the discussion here. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 15:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, it's all OTHERSTUFF, I just showed that "keep" is as much a possible outcome of this AfD as "delete". It's to be decided on the merits of this subject, and not any other. Kraxler ( talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

If by "what happens", you mean the opinion of you and two other editors at a relatively quiet AfD, then yes ok, there's one example of what happened. But until you can clearly show me that poor referencing is a cause for deletion, and not just a way of sweeping clutter under the rug as opposed to working on said article, I'm not buying it. As of the current listed examples of reasons for deletion, I'm not seeing any that this list applies to. Take note of number 6 too, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" not "Articles that are currently not attributed to reliable sources". If anything, an easy referencing method would be the respective albums's listed in the articles' liner notes or AllMusic credits. As for you calling fancruft, preposterous. Someone making a comprehensive "List of songs" article for an artist is most definitely not cruft. I just sourced 35+ entries in the list. Will resume when I wake up. Azealia911 talk 02:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

LISTCRUFT applies when the non-notable stuff by far exceeds the notable part. It's 64 nn to 25 n, by your count. This list is just a pretext to squeeze more info on 64 non-notable songs into Wikipedia. Kraxler ( talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrew Hastie (politician)

Andrew Hastie (politician) (  | 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 of this article fails WP:ONEEVENT as he is known only for his current political candidacy in an upcoming Australian federal by-election, with all references on him having appeared since this was announced and being focused on this fact. The usual convention is that Australian federal political candidates are not independently notable until they are elected, with this being the consensus of a discussion of this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Andrew Hastie (politician). While Mr Hastie's Army career was distinguished, it is not a source of independent notability as 1) his identity was legally protected as he was a member of the secretive Special Air Service Regiment so he received no coverage whatsoever for it until he announced his candidacy 2) the stories about his military service have been in the context of his political candidacy (he's running strongly on his military record) and 3) He did not hold a senior rank (he was a mid-ranked officer until he resigned to contest the election). Nick-D ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Nick-D ( talk) 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nick-D ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Full disclosure, I was the editor who approved this article through the AfC process. Nick-D and I have had a cordial back and forth regarding this article, which he felt should be a redirect, and I disagree with. I thought that if he felt strongly that a created article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, he should bring it to the AfD process, which he has graciously done. I understand his viewpoint, but in my opinion, this is a case that regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, this fledgling politician clearly passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It is rather tedious that it has had to come to this, since very possibly this whole affair will be rendered moot in two weeks' time. In the meantime, however, Hastie has no claim of passing GNG. He is known only and entirely for his candidacy for Canning; there is, to my knowledge, no coverage whatsoever of him in any other context, thus he fails ONEEVENT as Nick-D says. If he is successful - which he very well might be - then obviously he passes WP:POLITICIAN, but in the meantime he is not notable and the article is premature. We also want to discourage this kind of premature creation and actually had a kind of incubator for these a few years ago, which has fallen into abeyance. If someone wanted to host this in userspace until the by-election that would be a satisfactory solution as well - in fact, given that the article in its current state is quite decent, I would be happy to do so myself. Frickeg ( talk) 04:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just the national television coverage alone is enough to satisfy WP:N. Perhaps if this was part of a general election collection of candidates we would not have received the national coverage of the person. But that's not the case here. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. If he does not win the by-election, he will be just another failed candidate with a flash of fame due to that one event. Redirect to the by-election and give each candidate a neutral paragraph or two if needed. I agree it's a nice article, but I'm sure someone could write an article about each of us if they cared to. -- Scott Davis Talk 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Nick. Definite 1E for me. If elected, obviously a different matter. Wait until then. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It should have been speedied or redirected, Onel5969 had no business forcing this time-sensitive situation through AfD, and I would suggest a WP:SNOW close as soon as possible. Hastie has absolutely no claim to notability besides his political candidacy: if he wins, he will be unquestionably notable, if he loses, he is unquestionably not notable, and the by-election is far too closely contested for an article to be created in advance and only serves as campaign propaganda. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 05:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - regretfully as this article seems to be in good shape and is the work of a new editor. Regardless, I agree with the nominator's 1E rationale. The claim that Hastie has received ongoing nationwide media coverage is not really accurate as he only seems to have received coverage in the lead up to the election (i.e. his candidacy) which I don't think fits the definition of "ongoing". Of cse though this may change and in the future there may be more coverage (of either his political or military career, or both). I wonder if this might be USERFIED? Anotherclown ( talk) 07:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Postpone - The by-election will be held in 2 weeks time, and this AFD will run for 1 week. If he is elected (and he is the big favourite to win it, given he needs a 10% swing to lose it), the article will then be undeleted/recreated only 1 week after it's deleted. What a waste of time. If he loses, then I think that it should be selectively merged/redirected to Canning by-election, 2015. The-Pope ( talk) 08:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That would effectively create a special exemption from WP:NPOL, by which all candidates in current elections would suddenly become entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign advertising platform for the duration of the campaign, and then only after the results were finalized could we even begin to entertain deletion of any of them. And that wouldn't just apply to by-elections either; it would apply equally to all of the thousands of candidates in a full-on general election, too. No matter how ridiculous it may seem to delete the article and then possibly have to restore it again in a week or two, creating a special waiver from our inclusion rules just because the election's not very far off would be a logistical nightmare that would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a public relations database. There's always the option of sandboxing it, too. Bearcat ( talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per the nominator and other delete voters, and hopefully a WP:SNOW close. The concerns raised by The-Pope could be fixed by moving the article into userspace or WP:Draftspace. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Suspending our normal inclusion standards for politicians, just because the by-election's only a couple of weeks away and we might have to recreate the article again, is a can of worms that no sane editor wants to open — it would require us to accept every article about every candidate in any current election at any level of government in every country in the entire world, and would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a repository of campaign brochures. And even if he is favoured to win, per WP:CRYSTAL we're not in the business of publishing electoral predictions. Simply put, we have to stick with the rules — granting a temporary special exemption to candidates in current elections, just because we might have to recreate them again (oh, the horror) if the candidate wins, would inherently vitiate the very reason that our inclusion standards for politicians even exist in the first place. Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation if he wins; sandboxing in draft or userspace also acceptable. Bearcat ( talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Why would the result from a single AFD make a binding precedent that overrules NPOL? If I referred to this article in the next political candidate's AFD, I'd get OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fired at me. This isn't any old minor candidate. It's a by-election, so only one seat is being voted for, and the media focus is much higher than a normal state or national campaign (as the result is seen as a pointer to the status of the Prime Minister's standing). He isn't representing any old party, it's one of the two major political parties in the country and the incumbent party for this seat, so the prediction of victory is very high, it's currently paying about $1.22 (or 5/1 on) at the online bookies. This isn't a US style >2-year campaign, it's a 33 day campaign that's seen the Prime Minister appear numerous times alongside this candidate. If there was a case for a IAR on the standard notability guidelines (not rules) for political candidates, this is it. If it is deleted, will you salt it for that week to stop other well meaning people, political staffers or editors who want it to be a "PR database" from recreating it in the meantime? (and a disclaimer, in case anyone thinks I'm COI or connected to Hastie - my politics are almost completely opposite to his. So no, I don't know or support him in any way). The-Pope ( talk) 14:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete according to regular practice. It would have been better to have been left as a redirect so that it could be easily recreated.-- Grahame ( talk) 02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The claim by Nick-D that he is only known for his recent candidature ignores role as a member of SASR generally, and the fact he is linked to the incident regarding the severed hands. This case is only the second alleged war crimes investigation in Australia over the last 10 years, and Hastie is the only figure identified in public. For these reasons in my opinion he satisfies WP:GNG.-- Klobfour ( talk) 07:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
He was only identified after, and because, of his political candidacy. According to the media reports, he played no direct role in the incident and was cleared. I'm not sure what you mean by "ignores role as a member of SASR generally" - given that the identities of SAS personnel are legally protected, no notability whatsoever is attached to this: quite the opposite in fact. Moreover, the SAS Regiment has 500+ members at any given point in time, including what must be around 30 officers, so there's no intrinsic notability from being a former member of the unit. Nick-D ( talk) 07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Firstly, as you did with your original entry arguing for AfD and you’ve done again here, you have conflated the cause of his identification (political candidacy) with the cause of his notoriety (SAS soldier involved in high profile incidents and political candidacy) in an attempt to argue for deletion in accordance with WP:ONEEVENT. This is a false argument as they are two distinct elements; however, there is of course a relationship between the two. His notoriety extends from his career as a SAS officer AND his political candidacy. Perhaps you can argue that WP:POLITICIAN shows that listing him prior to election fails to satisfy this rule, but it relies on him having no notoriety other than candidacy, which is clearly not the case. Secondly, as Graeme said it’s not just an election, it’s a by-election, and it’s a by-election which has attracted more attention than any other in perhaps the last 20 years (maybe since Ros Kelly in 1995?). It’s in the news every night, and Hastie appears in the newspapers every morning, sometimes more than once. The arguments that if he loses he’ll just be another failed candidate are a weak generalisation, as at the very least we know from the alleged war crimes investigation that there’s more to come. Thirdly, your argument regarding “no notability whatsoever” due to the legally protected status of SAS personnel is a fallacy. It’s the equivalent of saying an event is unimportant because no-one saw or reported it. Maybe that tree never fell in the forest? I’m unsure what the strength of the SAS Regiment officers and men is but seeing as it’s “legally protected” the statistics you’ve used must be a stab in the dark at best, and afford no relevance to the discussion. Finally, there appears to be very limited risk of this amounting to a partisan article seeing as there is no mention of policy or the usual politicking politicians get up to, and the bulk of the article is devoted to his military service. I stand by my comments regarding satisfaction of WP:GNG. He’s attracted numerous front page stories on BOTH his candidacy and his military career, and I’m certain the media coverage over the next two weeks will further show that this is the case. I’m unsure why but my guess from your entry editorialising his private life and your removal of the references to the “controversial” article in ‘‘The Age’’ (despite it being slammed by politicians and commentators of all persuasions) is that you must really dislike this guy for some reason, hence your attempt to steamroll over all who disagree with you. Prove me wrong with a reasoned argument. Klobfour ( talk) 12:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn/speedy-close, editorial decision to REDIRECT to List of schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. As with all non-admin closures, this is without prejudice. ( non-admin closure)/nominator-closure. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

St. Gregory Barbarigo School

St. Gregory Barbarigo School (  | 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 school. No indication it passes WP:NSCHOOL, WP:CORP, or WP:GNG. Most "delete" arguments raised in 2006 AFD still apply. Many "keep" arguments from 2006 have been superceded by changes in Wiki-practice as seen in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That AFD closed as "no consensus". Note: Potential redirect target to Garnerville, New York would be potentially confusing to readers as the page doens't have an "education" section. Having said that, I am okay with either delete or redirect. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • As nominator I have no objection to redirecting the page to any suitable target including this one. A target that mentions the school by name or that at least mentions elementary schools in that geographic area or which could have a mention easily added (i.e. without having to add a bunch of other stuff for context) would likely be more suitable than one that doesn't mention it or which would need a large or awkward edit to mention it. Had there not been any past deletion- or redirect-attempts I would've simply redirect it to somewhere or WP:PRODed it. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 14:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Patchblocks

Patchblocks (  | 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 newly minted WP:PROMOTIONAL article consists of 8 largely non-RS references that include YouTube, Kickstarter, Facebook, the company's own website, etc., plus a handful (3) of drive-by product reviews of specific items manufactured by the company (not actual information on the company itself). LavaBaron ( talk) 03:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I created this article and I am not sure why LavaBaron insists that it is promotional material. I have no relation to this company, and I do not own these products, nor am I interested in advancing their reputation. I will happily rewrite any material that seems too much like an ad. Primary sources (the YouTube interview, the Kickstarter, the Facebook page) are not unreliable sources by any means. Also, the company's website is not actually cited in the article, and the other 5 references are to secondary sources. Create Digital Music, AskAudio and Fact have regular staff subject to editorial oversight. I can't find as much detailed information about Earmilk, though it appears to have a managing staff. If the concern is that the page covers the product more than the company, couldn't a move/restructuring be more effective? I'd also like to say that I feel like this AfD may have been started hastily and in bad faith after I asked LavaBaron to explain their tags on the article on the talk page. Boomur [ ] 03:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If you're citing a source that you don't know much about but "appears to have an editorial staff" [sic] that's a good clue it's non-RS. As for not explaining my tags to you, it's not my responsibility to explain why Facebook and YouTube are non-RS to a seasoned editor such as yourself. It would be different if you were new here. But asking me to spend time typing out the patently obvious is a nuisance request. If you truly don't know at this point in your WP career, you may want to spend some time observing before continuing editing. LavaBaron ( talk) 03:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please see WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources are not necessarily unreliable. The tags you left on the article were mainly related to lack of references, original research, and puffery; I was seeking examples of those things so that they could be corrected, because from my perspective they were not present in the article (which doesn't mean they're not present). Boomur [ ] 03:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
They are in this case. LavaBaron ( talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as they are not notable. I went through the article and chopped it down to size, and removed the Facebook and Youtube "refs". Setting aside who created the article or why, it seems it is now standard practice for any small Maker-type company that relies on the Internet for sales to have a Wikipedia page like this to promote their product and to tell the world that they are alive. In this case I would say it is WP:TOOSOON. Companies like littleBits or Adafruit are notable for having generated enormous independent third-party press about their products. Look at the refs in Ayah Bdeir's article: those are notable. The refs in this article are very weak mentions in industry publications and do not denote significant notability. New Media Theorist ( talk) 17:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeah, as more companies are learning about Google Knowledge Graph, there's been a race to claim real estate. We seem to be seeing a lot of small companies desperately lining up to push-through articles about themselves. I've been AfD'ing like a madman lately. LavaBaron ( talk) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Yes Boomur, I understood that from when you said as much in your first comment. If you read my comment two up from this, and LavaBaron's directly above, we do not claim you are associated with the company. We were just talking generally about the appropriateness/notability factor of very small companies having Wikipedia pages. That's the crux of the notability issue here: very small company with minor industry press. Does it need a page, is it notable enough to warrant one? I say WP:TOOSOON. And yes, I know you disagree. Hoping to hear what others have to say. New Media Theorist ( talk) 02:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Just calm down, no one is accusing you of anything. The article will be deleted fairly shortly and then we can all go back to routine. LavaBaron ( talk) 03:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, WP:SOFTDELETE-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Anbukkodi Makkal

Anbukkodi Makkal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches including the simplest found absolutely nothing at all so, given it's an Indian subject, I'm sure if sources are simply not easily accessible. However, it was started in June 2005 by an Indian IP and has not been significantly edited since so that concerns me. I'd like to invite fellow hoax hunter Calamondin12 for comment. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· E· C) 03:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Not a hoax. Appears to be a rarely-used spelling; more common is Anbu Kodi Makkal. I've found references to "anbukkodi" as a symbol used by devotees of Ayya Vaikundar, such as page 47 of this document: "A global structure called “samattuva sangham” was created with a saffron flag with a white jwala (‘anbukkodi’) in the middle." It's unclear how much the term is actually used, however, so ideally an expert on religion in India may be able to offer some advice on whether to keep the article (which has very little real content) or to redirect to Ayyavazhi. Calamondin12 ( talk) 12:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 11:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Busted Halo

Busted Halo (  | 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 google test, and has had the {{ notability}} tag on it since 2011. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 16:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Tiffany Clark (volleyball)

Tiffany Clark (volleyball) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable underage athlete. Fails WP:NHSPHSATH. On WP:VBALL, the project seems to indicate that youth amateur players are not notable. This would change, of course, if there were multiple third party sources to state notability. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are on the same team; and they all fall under the same notability status:

Morgan Hentz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sydney Hilley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khalia Lanier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Madison Lilley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regan Pittman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kathryn Plummer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ronika Stone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexis Sun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Undead Never Die ( talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: WP:BEFORE should have prevented this irresponsible nomination. Plenty of sources to satisfy GNG - including these two from the Chicago Tribune: [51] [52] Similar minimal effort turns up third-party news stories for the other players. Recommend this be speedily closed if not withdrawn by nominator. The Dissident Aggressor 21:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This has nothing to do with WP:BEFORE. The sources you listed, I had also found. I cannot access them without paying for them and I will not do that. It might have been the way they were linked, but I think I have accessed them successfully now. So to comment on the sources. The one source does talk about Clark, I understand that. However, that does not equal significant third party coverage. The second source is a list of players and a small piece on them, something you would generally find for an underage athlete in a local paper. See other linked discussions in regards to this for reference. As per WP:NHSPHSATH, "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." None of these individuals satisfy this requirement. It goes on to say "The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.", which hammers on the two sources linked above. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 21:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
So you found sources satisfying WP:GNG and nominated them anyway. We're done. The Dissident Aggressor 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Your sources do not meet WP:GNG. They are written for local sports sections in local papers. That fails notability. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 05:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 01:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Osama Ali

Osama Ali (  | 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 athlete. Quis separabit? 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 23:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Alek Skarlatos

Alek Skarlatos (  | 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 young man is one of the three US citizens involved in disarming the gunman during 2015 Thalys train attack, therefore newspaper coverage of him is immense. However is this a WP:BLP1E? The only content in this article which is not in the main event page, is that apparently he is now going to be appearing on Dancing with the Stars. Does this justify the article? Pincrete ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as article creator. Skarlatos was initially notable for one event, but not anymore. He became publicly known for stopping the terrorist attack, but is know notable for being a foreign recipient of the Legion of Honour. He will also be on Dancing with the Stars. He does not satisfy BLP1E because quote on quote " We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Skarlatos is very unlikely to be a low-profile individual now that he is a foreign recipient of France's highest award, and will be having coverage of his role on Dancing with the Stars. Quote on quote "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Skarlatos role in the stopping of the French train attack was very well documented by international media. Skarlatos does not satisfy that category. Skarlatos also satisfies the WP:GNG. He has had more attention about him than just his role in the attack by international media. He will know be getting more coverage since he will be on Dancing with the Stars. This article was nominated for deletion too early. He does satisfy the guidelines, and his article should stay. Good day! CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal. Pincrete ( talk) 17:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, if you read what I said, Skarlatos does not meet criteria for BLP1E for several reasons. That is to protect people who don't want fame, obviously he wants fame due to the fact that he will be on Dancing with the Stars. I do agree that I am being biased due to the Crystal rule, but you know there is alternatives to deletion. Also; he meets the Wikipedia notability guide WP:ANYBIO #1, quote on quote "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." He also meets Wikipedia notability guide WP:NotableMIL #1, quote on quote "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Of course I read what you wrote, what information is in this article that is not already in the main 'attack' article, apart from the 'dancing' plug and the assumption that this is going to lead to notability beyond the single event? See my remarks about WP:CRIME below, because everything in this discussion hinges on whether going to be in 'Dancing', justifies the seperate article. Pincrete ( talk) 08:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - per WP:ANYBIO #1, Legion of Honor the highest award in France. WP:BLP1E requires three criteria to be met but does not meet #1 because Skarlatos will be on Dances with Stars. His decision to appear on Dancing with the Stars tells us he is seeking the spotlight and choosing to be a public figure. BLP1E is meant to protect people from becoming a public figure who otherwise don't seek it but were thrust into the spotlight by some news event. Skarlatos is seeking the spotlight and now involved in multiple events. Also #3 requires an "insignificant event"; this arguably a significant event and he played a prominent role. -- Green C 00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep His Dancing with the Stars is very persuasive for a keep since he would be a war hero and a TV star. Other Dancing with the Stars contestants have Wikipedia pages. A sign of our sad Wikipedia world is that the DWTS stint makes him notable, more than his role in stopping a terrorist attack. Sandra opposed to terrorism ( talk) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sandra, as I say above to CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal, neither motives nor intentions are known. Pincrete ( talk) 17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He's been featured on many media outlets for a significant amount of time and will continue to be covered on, which already establishes some notability. I think an article for him is in order. In fact, I think articles for all the other passengers involved in subduing the gunman is in order. Versus001 ( talk) 03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment These are all WP:Crystal arguments, of course his present fame MAY lead to him being known beyond this event, but at present this one event is the sole reason for the coverage. Pincrete ( talk) 09:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The guy is known for 2 reasons. Just because a particular reader or man on the street is ignorant and doesn't know him is not a disqualifying reason. For example, ask the man on the street who famous author Pablo Neruda or famous painter Jackson Pollack were and maybe 95% of people will say "never heard of him". Given that criteria, most Wikipedia articles would be deleted except the Kardashians and President Obama. Even the Prime Minister of New Zealand would be deleted because 99% of people on the street can't name him. Sandra opposed to terrorism ( talk) 21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
At present, he is known for one reason, and the best place to incorporate the info about him is the event for which he is known, where it is given context, and will remain permanent. Everything else is crystal-ball gazing based on just over two weeks of news coverage. The media and the public are fickle. Pincrete ( talk) 08:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
CookieMonster, I was not aware of WP:ANYBIO, thanks for bringing that to my attention. If that's legit, I would change my vote (unhappily, but I would). The reason I'm not happy about it, is that it would mean we have about one million articles to add to WP. Would you like to take the first 500,000 and I'll take the rest? ;-) Mathglot ( talk) 07:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
CookieMonster read on below ANYBIO to WP:CRIME: " A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." ... What encyclopedic info cannot be incorporated, indeed has not already been incorporated in the main event page ? Pincrete ( talk) 08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
He is not a criminal. I pointed out that he qualifies for his own article under ANYBIO. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
'who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial', of course he isn't a criminal. Who suggested he was? Pincrete ( talk) 17:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry Pincrete for not reading the full text in context. I guess Skarlatos would fit in that category... CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Necrothesp - He still does not fit the BLP1E. I explained above. No, his media coverage is not a BLP1E. What about Dancing with the Stars coverage he has already received. Does that have any connection with the Paris train attack? I don't think so... but it's fine if you beg differently. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
He has only been asked to be on Dancing with the Stars because of the Paris train attack, so yes, it quite clearly has a connection. How bizarre that you seem to think it doesn't! Reality TV contestants always get a lot of coverage but are not generally considered to be notable just because they're reality TV contestants. This is long-established. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Hmm... you do make a point Necrothesp, but I feel like your being sarcastic, but I guess that's just me. CookieMonster755 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
No, not sarcastic. Just rather surprised at your statement that his reality TV coverage had nothing to do with his exploits in France. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Are you trying to suggest that someone with significant coverage somehow isn't notable? -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Jakob, the coverage isn't simply significant, it's huge, however all of it relates the the 'trigger event', and guidelines are clear that he should be covered within the event page. There is anyway no additional content on 'his' page apart from maybe he is going to be on a dance programme. Pincrete ( talk) 21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You can't vote twice, the nomination is considered a vote. You may comment, or engage in discussion, as much as you like, though. Kraxler ( talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Kraxler, I didn't consider the nomination a vote, more a question, however I am happy to abide by standard practice. Pincrete ( talk) 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Clarification, I did not nominate this article for deletion because I thought that there was insufficient coverage, nor because I believed that Skarlatos did not 'deserve' coverage. Rather because WP's best interest (and his?) are best served by covering his role within the incident for which he is known. Time will tell whether he carves out a public role outside that event. Pincrete ( talk) 12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Appears to be notable for both a television role and winning a notable award for heroism; this BLP1E is not relevant. -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Third-level (or lower) gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Many thousands of people have won such decorations. Why is he special? Reality TV contestant because of his gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Perfectly well covered in the article on the incident. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Necrothesp. Notability needs to stand the test of time, and this person clearly doesn't. In the world we live in these days, anyone can garner significant coverage in a matter of hours. Does an encyclopaedia benefit from articles about things gone viral? I seriously doubt it. If he becomes notable in the near future, then we can easily recreate this biography. Let's see what happens; from experience I'm about 96% sure there'll be no more coverage about him in a couple of months' time, but then again let's not assume, let's see (which is how Wikipedia works, not assuming people deserve articles but rather observing after there is well-established atemporal and extensive coverage). FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • note that journalists [7] and [8] their [9] readers [10] can't seem to get enough Skarlatos. That was just some of what's on a news google search by "most recent first". I propose we all put way our crystal balls, keep this one for now, and revisit in a year, when there may be some clarity as to enduring notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
E.M.Gregory, you have voted above to 'keep'. Pincrete ( talk) 20:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
True. Nor did I just "vote". I "noted" that quite a lot of coverage continues to appear daily in mainstream media. I suggested that the article be kept - because it has a ton of sources; pointed out that calling this a flash in the pan requires the use of a crystal ball; and suggested that a kept article can be revisited if an editor thinks - months from now - that he can persuade the rest of us that Skarlatos was a mere nine days wonder. Cheers. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Clarify I am a firm keep. There is notability here. If it comes up for AFD again, I will argue that enduring notability is established by sources now available. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 06:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Winner 42, as I've said often above, there is enormous coverage, but almost all of it relates directly to the train incident, what point therefore is repeating that info on a 'private' page? Maybe in the future he will establish some notability outside that incident, at present he hasn't. What does WP gain? Gathering all relevant info in one place, where it has context. Pincrete ( talk) 07:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (or maybe redirect--let the tabloids decide whether to redirect to the Thalys attack or to Dancing with the Stars). I don't see why anyone who makes the papers needs an article, hero or not. We have this crazy situation where everything gets written up in some publication which by sheer force of weight gets accepted as a reliable source, and next thing you know we have a million YouTube "personalities" and other biographies of people who otherwise would live a peaceful two-sentence existence in a bigger article. I'm completely with Necrothesp: coverage is limited (of course) to the one event, and the rest is crystalballery. BTW, someone needs to explain to me, at some point, why a contestant on a TV dance show needs an article. Like, a real explanation please, not one that says "Entertainment Tonight mentioned his name three times, as did Perez Hilton". Drmies ( talk) 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comments (probably nothing useful:)), funny when afds become longer then the article concerned, "The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability" - very common??, I don't have one, does anyone else involved in this discussion?, according to the wikiarticle Legion of Honour, as of 2010 there has only been about 100,000 issued, if we can have thousands of articles about academy award winners and sports people ("competed at the modern Olympic Games" is notable WP:NOLYMPICS - 1000s compete at each Olympics eg. over 10,000 at London) why can't recipients of this honor (and obes, mbes as well:)) have an article (and no, I am not volunteering to do them:))? Also, is the WP:SOLDIER comment relevant as this person is receiving the award as a civilian? If this article is redirected, won't there arise balance/undue weight issues in the main article? "it's only a WP:BLP1E situation" which states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met" (my emphasis) can someone please show where this is the case here as I have not been convinced by the 'deleters'. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Coolabahapple, WP:CRIME advises: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There are at least 5 people whose actions on the train are highly notable (2 French (one whose full name is not known), 3 US, 1 UK). Is the reader better served by all of the relevant info being in one place (inc. their honours) or being spread across 5-6 articles? Pincrete ( talk) 17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Pincrete, fair point about WP:CRIME, although I have been involved in/and read afds where the idea that WP:GNG trumps other policies/guidelines has held sway. On the point about the other people involved, if they are seen as notable/more notable then Skarlatos I am sure an editor will remedy their non-article situation. If a reader is interested enough in the subject, a couple of clicks won't put them off. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe! But it's more likely to be the will of consensus based on policy and determined by the closing administrator. If you'd like to consider administrators to be servants of the Lord that is, of course, entirely up to you. Keegan ( talk) 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I was being serious with a hint of humor ;P CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Let’s face it, WP:BLP1E rule is somewhat subjective. For example, most Congressional Medal of Honor winners are low-viz people who earn their notability with one act of courage. If an individual captures the world’s attention like Skarlatos has, they should be notable enough for an individual Wikipedia page. There’s certainly enough independent, secondary source material to do a good article on him including information about his personal life (which goes beyond his involvement in the train attack). The fact that he have now been selected to be on Dancing with the Stars is good evidence that his notoriety may go beyond just one event. One final point … all of the participants in the 2015 season of Dancing with the Stars now have individual bio articles in Wikipedia (along with all their professional dancing partners)…see Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 20). So are we going to delete Skarlatos bio article now and then add it back when he starts dancing?-- Orygun ( talk) 00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If all there was was terror attack, then WP:BLP1E might apply. I do think it is too early to decide whether or not WP:BIO1E is indicated, per WP:CRYSTAL. But using BLP1E, this individual does not appear to meet all 3 criteria. All that said, with the announcement of his participation on DWTS, BLP1E clearly no longer applies. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Toshishiro Obata

Toshishiro Obata (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinkendo, three different editors questioned the notability of this person, the inventor of [Shinkendo. When attempting to rewrite this article recently, I was able to find only one source with any coverage at all of his life and achievements (I don't speak or read Japanese). I too question his notability. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 22:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That would be WP:MANOTE. Peter Rehse ( talk) 22:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I see WP:MANOTE is an essay rather than a guideline, but still works. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Solo Türk

Solo Türk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most Air Forces have one or more solo display aircraft that fly in events and airshows and unlike multiple aircraft aerobatic teams these are not really notable, I cant see that this solo aircraft is particularly notable outside a mention on the Turkish Air Force page. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Air Forces solo display aircraft teams are notable. Air Forces solo display aircraft teams should have one pages, or at least build into the Air Force page with MORE than just 1-2 sentens.
FFA P-16 ( talk) 22:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@Steelpillow I can not see any word on Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) that single aircraft display Teams are not notable.. There exist a few single aircraft teams who play an important part on international air shows with history and some of them earned aviatic awards. I don't see any reason why Display Teams with 2 or more aircraft can bee on Wikipedia and such with 1 aircraft not. FFA P-16 ( talk) 16:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
One lone machine is not a "team". The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft. If a given "team" gains enough mention then notability can be established in the usual way by citing reliable sources which actually address the notability of the aircraft and/or its team. That is not the case here, the main sources are concerned with a centenary event and this aircraft's display gets only a passing mention. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Well the therm Team is not only relatet to the numbers of aircraft. I can not agree with "The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft". Whitout more than 1 person no aircraft display would be possibel . Also the definition "One lone machine is not a "team"" is not right [11] its 1 Superpuma or Cougar.. but its the Super Puma Display Team..Super Puma Display TEAM. Or [12] again its SWISS HORNET DISPLAY TEAM. Also they don't do just some fly by, they have a real display program with manouvers specialised for a display. FFA P-16 ( talk) 10:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Still on Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is no definition about Display Teams nor a definition about the term "Team". To have here on English Wikipedia only the Teams from 2 aircraft and more but suppress informations about single aircraft display teams makes Wikipedia in this aeronautics topic an unusable tool. FFA P-16 ( talk) 12:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is a tool for informations. It is not at wikipeda to define what is an aerobatic team and what is not. If an Air Force like the Greece, Belgian, Swiss , Turkish Air Force(in this case the Turkish Air Force) has given an single aircraft display team the official statuts, it si it. Wikipedia can (should)put in this in its "database". To think Wikipedia could determine over decisions of Air Force is illogical and absurd. Banish teams with only one airplane from Wikipedia, violated the basic idea of Wikipedia about the neutral and equitable access of information. FFA P-16 ( talk) 12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I appreciate the effort put in creating the article, but I see no notability on it. If single aircraft in airline fleets are not notable, I don't see why a particular military aircraft is.-- Jetstreamer  Talk 17:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: These single aircraft demonstrations should just be a simple mention on the page of the applicable air force, not their own article. - Ahunt ( talk) 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment two issues. 1) is there significant mentions in reliable sources to show notability of the subject, 2) is there sufficient material to write a complete article without padding the article with non-notable material? I think both need to be achieved for the article to stand alone. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment also note that air forces like the Royal Air Force have had four or five solo demonstration aircraft every year for a long time, at the beginning of the season you get a press release as they paint a new scheme on an aircraft to use, although it is the pilot who is the authorised demonstrator so sometimes they dont use the "painted" aircraft. Take the other Swiss example the Swiss Super Puma solo demonstrator uses a different aircraft from the fleet every time as the display authority for solos is the pilot. We might consider a stand-alone article on military aircraft solo demonstrators but if you look at something like the Royal International Air Tattoo these are pretty common and none I would say are notable for a stand-alone article like this one. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Super Puma Display Team can use any of the Swiss Air Forces Super Puma or Cougar right, but we should not focus on it if the aircraft has a special painting or if there are 1 or more pilots. I think the approach for such single aircraft teams verification of notability should be his continuity in standardized existence for several years (for eg. since min.3 years) with regular displays flown on public events and or airshows. No mater if an aircraft has a special painting or not. I would not count aircraft with a special paint for just a single event (for eg . NATO Tigermeet) to this. FFA P-16 ( talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this mosque does not meet Wikipedia's standards of topic notability to qualify for an article. North America 1000 00:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Peer Fani Masjid, Bidar

Peer Fani Masjid, Bidar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a mosque which does not meet WP:GNG. My searches bring up zero hits on this mosque. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: No assertion of notability. The article basically says that it's a mosque near Bidar, a town about 100km from Hyderabad. The article about Bidar mentions a long list of monuments in the city, but makes no mention of this mosque, so I seriously doubt that it's very significant. I did web and Google Books searches, but they also failed to turn up anything significant. -- Slashme ( talk) 09:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus: not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Gian Carlos

Gian Carlos (  | 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: utterly non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 05:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 00:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ivor Lawton

Ivor Lawton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't played a first team game Telfordbuck ( talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hit Squad. ( non-admin closure)Davey2010 Talk 01:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Knucklehedz

Knucklehedz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails on WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Notability tag is placed since January 2011. No coverage in reliable sources at all. Hitro talk 21:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the qualification is playing in a regular season game, not just being on the roster DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ike Igbinosun

Ike Igbinosun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON. I can't find anything on him playing in a regular season game Rowsdower960 ( talk) 20:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tutelary ( talk) 20:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unable to find any reasonable news sources and otherwise does not meet any notability standard that I can find.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This one is a close call. He has a profile at Pro-Football-Reference.com here, which I think means that he is a regular roster player (as opposed to just practice squad) but lists no regular season game appearances. Then there's this from NFL.com, which seems to state he remains on the Jacksonville Jaguars roster as of the last preseason game on 9/3/15 (and so far I find no release saying he's been cut). Also, there is some significant coverage. See, e.g., this profile from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, this from the New Haven Register, this short piece from First Coast News, this blurb from the Sun Times Network, this longer story from Bleacher Report (debatable as reliable source), and this short blurb from Rolling Stone. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While I appreciate the research efforts that Cbl62 made above, I see exactly one independent, reliable source that rises to the level of significant coverage of the subject (i.e., Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2012, linked above). The remainder of the coverage is routine transactional coverage that every NFL signee receives, one that discussed the purported unpronounceability of his name (i.e., Rolling Stone), with the added coverage of a fansite (i.e., BleacherReport.com). The subject player was not a notable college athlete, and has never played in a regular season NFL game in three previous NFL seasons; he is not a part of any roster, practice otherwise, and the likelihood of him now appearing in an NFL game is slim. I see no loss of encyclopedic content by the deletion of this article. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, edits conflicted, user realised how to create a PROD template. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Dubble A

Dubble A (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For Sgim43 ( talk · contribs), who says that By this own definition [of Dubble A having a single or album on a national music chart] fails the requirement, as the source given in not a recognized or National Music Chart. All Access Music Group, the creator of this "chart" doesn't even have a wikipage. Based on this then I could create and LLC as a upstart publishing company or radio station, create a list with any 10 people I want and then create pages for them!" My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus that no nobility has been shown DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Mohkam Din Serani

Mohkam Din Serani (  | 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 is so troubled and my searches found nothing aside from a YouTube video here and a blog there and the current sources aren't very detailed so unless this can actually be improved, I'm not seeing much and this has existed since August 2008 without the slightest significant improvement. Pinging tagger MBisanz and maybe Diannaa (removed the wikifying tag). SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- the present article says nothing about what he did in a probably long period between his going to Delhi and being poisoned at the age of about 60. I get the feeling that the article has lost its middle and that he is an early holder of some important office, but currently he appears to be utterly NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we can't be left to guess what an article is about, the creator of it should tell us, or there should be sources to enlighten us, but there aren't any. Kraxler ( talk) 20:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied to User:Niespodj/The Other Side (2014 film) due to future potential.-- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The Other Side (2014 film)

The Other Side (2014 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film which only contains one Unreliable source. The article does not meet any sort of notability requirement including WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Searches are difficult as there seem to be several different films by the same name. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 18:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I am new to wiki so I apologize if not using proper tags, etc. There are approximately two dozen legitimate reviews of the film. I did not post them on the page because I wanted to keep it 100% neutral and not show favoritism in selecting one review over another. Also, if the official website is visited (www.teamorchard.com) there are direct links on the front page to the film online on all major internet video on demand platforms, including Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, iTunes, and Google Play. I did not include these links in the movie's page because I did not want to commercialize it or use it for publicity. The film has also screened at a half dozen film festivals in 2015. There are films with the same title listed that have far less credentials and widescale availability, so I'm unsure why this particular film page is being targeted for deletion. Niespodj ( talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Being available for distribution and having screened at festivals aren't things that would automatically give notability, although they do make it much easier for something to gain coverage. I'll try to find the reviews, but I'm concerned that these reviews might not be usable as reliable sources ( WP:RS) and may be the unusable sources that Erik was talking about. Not all reviews are usable as reliable sources, so if something was covered in a self-published blog, those cannot be used. (However if the blog was included in a notable, reliable aggregate website like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes as a critic review, then it could be used.) Also, saying that other things exist ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) with less notability on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for inclusion, as there are many, many articles on here for films that really don't pass notability guidelines - they just haven't been detected yet. However all of that said, I will try to look for sources and see if I can find enough for the film to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy. Right now it's a little early for it to have an article, as the only true coverage we have is a press release from Dread Central and two articles from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. There are some blog reviews out there, but not in any places that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. However given that the film has just gone to VOD, it's possible that there will be some more reviews coming in the future, so I think it'd be a good idea to userfy the content. I'm willing to do that, since that would help counteract the concerns about a conflict of interest. Now if these reviews come up before the AfD closes, this will of course be a keep on my end. Niespodj, since you are involved with the film I'd like to suggest that you petition the following sites for reviews: Dread Central, HorrorNews.net, Bloody Disgusting, Fangoria, and Ain't It Cool News. AICN, Fangoria, and HN.N are all very good about reviewing indie horror films. Flickering Myth and We Got This Covered are also good places to look towards for soliciting reviews as well, since they're also good about reviewing indie films and both are considered to be RS on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
alts
writer/director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer/director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
distributor:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Even if no new sources pop up in 6 days, with wide release September 18, we probably will not have to wait for Halloween. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Schmidt, I had to remove the Dread Central bit from the reception section. The Dread Central article is a reprint of the press release for the most part and the bits that were added as a review were from the press release. You can tell because this was reprinted in this website and labeled as a press release. The portions about the cast's home bases looks like it was heavily or directly taken from a press release as well, but that's a basic detail so there's no reason not to include that - just be careful about anything italicized on DC since that usually means that they took it from somewhere else. However that said, I did find some probably usable reviews, so yay for that. I'll add them soon. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Argh, all blog reviews. (Got them from this press package.) I was hoping that Horror Society would at least be usable, but they have nothing on their page about their editorial oversight. The other sites are either outright unusable blogs or also lack anything on their site that would show that they have an editorial board that Wikipedia would approve of as a RS. (sighs) I wish more outlets would label people as editors or whatnot. Horror Society likely does have them, but chooses not to include them. I'll drop them an e-mail about this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Clear consensus; not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

AHuman Project

AHuman Project (  | 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 asserted, no third-party sources (the one "reference" is by no means a source for the subject, having nothing to do with the AHumanProject), opinionated incoherent writing. I PRODded it, but the prod was promptly removed by the creator, with the argument that it needs to be on Wikipedia precisely because it is nowhere else, if I understood them correctly. [13] Bishonen | talk 16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

VS: Well, let me clarify. I have used many sources, including Wikipedia to create content of aHuman. This project is not just pages to collect the information, but it contains know-how on how to integrate the information, and auto-generated content. Quality of data were confirmed several times in private emails to me from science representatives. Still, as I'm not a part of science community, it's quite hard to have formal references. At least, I have not spend much efforts for that up to the moment. Nevertheless, I think that it is the quite unique source of information, which have to be available to scientists. aHuman tag on google search is first line of output - so I can pretend it's sort of referenced actually. But when google buried its googlecode service and I migrated project to specific hosting, I need smth to let people know where they can find aHuman pages now. So, it is need both to community an to me (btw, to much lesser extent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik ( talkcontribs) 16:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

VS: Guys, ok, looks like you do not see the point. Wikipedia will miss more than me. Your pages are also criticized for politicisms and intentional distortions and some people do not trust your information at all. Now I also can see your rule set is somehow reasonable but fail in some cases. If you like you can believe that it is a sort of consensus. Happy with "let alone discussing it in any depth" - gentle enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik ( talkcontribs) 19:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Yep.The topics of Wikipedia articles have to meet our notability guideline. At present, this one doesn't. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -Although this sounds like an interesting project, it needs, as others have stated, to have been written about in independant reliable sources to be considered notable for Wikipedia. ABF99 ( talk) 03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

VS: final message from me. Wikipedia is arranged collection of significant facts. It is the only achievable goal disregarding your personal thoughts about it. aHuman is a fact confirmed by its author. And it is significant fact because of the concept and volume and quality of published project data. Hence if your rules prevent people across the world to let know about this fact, it means that existing formal rule set is incorrect. So is up to you whether to sacrifise Wikipedia mission or to improve rules.

Thank you all, welcome to ahuman.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsavchik ( talkcontribs) 09:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 00:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Alesia McKinnon

Alesia McKinnon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Other than her IMDb page I couldn't find enough coverage about her. In fact, the TV series mentioned in the article, Clairvoyance: The Ellis Files, is currently a red link, and even if it weren't, the role, as well as McKinnon's other roles, do not appear to pass WP:ENTERTAINER as they are mostly guest or supporting roles. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 15:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
CSD A7 does not seem to apply in view of her IMDb page. [14] -- Edcolins ( talk) 13:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah nope I was indeed wrong as A7 states " The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear,", so nope you're completely correct, In that case Delete as non notable actress. – Davey2010 Talk 14:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

New Amsterdam Spirits

New Amsterdam Spirits (  | 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:NOTADVERTISING, lack of reliable sources JMHamo ( talk) 15:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 15:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 15:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Pichilemu political controversies

Pichilemu political controversies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local political lore in a place of pop. 14,000; fails WP:NEVENT, coverage is very much restricted to the local newspapers Kraxler ( talk) 14:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The controversies were definitely notable to be mentioned in so many news outlet, and even considering the local sources heavily outweigh any national ones, there's not really a requirement for an article to have multiple national sources for the subject of it to be considered notable. It doesn't overuse a single source, it uses multiple sources from many newspapers, which is why I feel it should be kept. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I suggest you check again the sources. There are dead links, official election department candidates' listings, and a lot of pieces from the Pichilemu local papers. There are about three sources from bigger newspapers for a few particular points, but that doesn't mean that the whole lot gets suddenly notable. See also WP:COATRACK. Kraxler ( talk) 17:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Kraxler, I suggest you withdraw this nomination. I could even, myself, give you access to El Mercurio web archives (I'm a suscriber) so that you can see yourself there is plenty of coverage on this series of events. Not to mention, La Tercera, El Rancagüino (offline) and other non-local references... (I see you have a problem with local sources) Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I suggest you read carefully WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. Kraxler ( talk) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
These don't have anything to do with this particular article. Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 01:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
They are guidelines applicable to all articles on events. Kraxler ( talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Patricio Morales

Patricio Morales (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 14:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
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. Too minor of a politician with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG-- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 07:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrea Aranda

Andrea Aranda (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 14:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 16:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 Too minor of a politician with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG-- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 07:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Viviana Parraguez

Viviana Parraguez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 14:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Minor local politician with non-significant coverage. Fails our inclusion guidelines.-- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 07:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Juan Cornejo

Juan Cornejo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 13:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. consensus is sufficient DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Roberto Córdova

Roberto Córdova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of a place of pop. 14,000, fails WP:NPOL, coverage is WP:ROUTINE and restricted to his hometown newspaper, fails also WP:GNG Kraxler ( talk) 13:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
While it is better that you've found some non-Pichilemu sources, the coverage in those are mentions where he is quoted or interviewed, with very little content on the individual himself. I'm discounting the Pichilemu sources who of course will cover their mayor in-depth but lack scope. Vrac ( talk) 20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
An entity that itself has a population of about 40k. It has been translated as "province" but a closer equivalent in English would be county. A province is commonly a principal administrative division, which is not the case in Chile, whose principal administrative divisions are the regions. Vrac ( talk) 18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. He never received significant press coverage. -- Keysanger ( talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Exactly. Even the head of the subdivision itself would be deleted if it only had a population of 40,000 failing another reason to keep him. And that would be the case in Britain or America just as it would anywhere else. Leaders of British county councils don't generally have articles, for example, and they often serve a population of several hundred thousand. He just isn't notable enough. Sorry. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Geoffroy Faugérolas

Geoffroy Faugérolas (  | 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 filmmaker. Fails both WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BASIC. I could find a passing reference here, one interview on Lazydog Films (a blog), and another interview on Flickering Myth (which seems to be a blog as well), but this is insufficient under WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Edcolins ( talk) 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - article created by Geothebg ( talk · contribs), a WP:SPA who also created the now-deleted article for someone else of the same last name. "Nominations" - seemingly just showings at a film festival - are for local festivals anyway and do not add up to the level of significance we seek for nominations qualifying one for notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Aldo Polanco

Aldo Polanco (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Town councillor in a small place, fails WP:NPOL Kraxler ( talk) 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. With no prejudice towards recreation if construction ends up going ahead and further coverage occurs. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Kuching Tower

Kuching Tower (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kuching tower ground breaking ceremony was held in 2005 and is never completed. Apart from news back in 2005, there is no news since then for the progress of the construction. Cerevisae ( talk) 11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ontological question: how can a something physical be notable if it does not yet exist? New Media Theorist ( talk) 21:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The media release on which the article is based states that is "located on the Kuching Isthmus" - yet satellite and streetview imagery from 2015 shows no indication of such a structure there. No evidence this project went ahead beyond the initial media release. -- ELEKHH T 11:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as this is too crystally and if it wasn't for the unclear plans, it would've been acceptable but we'll wait for a more solid article. SwisterTwister talk
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. L Faraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Edward Aguirre

Edward Aguirre (  | 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 was nominated for speedy deletion, which I don't think it quite meets. I suspect this person is non-notable (the books are vanity press) but bringing it to AfD just in case. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn - article has been moved and improved by @ Fenix down:. Giant Snowman 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

NFF Women's League Squad 2015

NFF Women's League Squad 2015 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This is a non-notable list of people, and we don't have (or need) individual squad lists, especially for such a minor tournament / so many non-notable people. Giant Snowman 10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Understand, I am working on profile for all players, is this something i should have before creating the squad list? Mike Hadnett ( talk) 10:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Mike Hadnett: - no, these people are non-notable unless' they have played senior international football for New Zealand (see WP:NFOOTBALL) and any profiles you create will just wind up deleted as well. I suggest you save your time. Giant Snowman 10:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

*Delete - complete lack of coverage from secondary sources means that this fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· C) 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is a team competing in the top level of women's football in New Zealand, indeed, it is a team that has won the competition several times in recent years per RSSSF. I have moved the article to a more appropriate title per RSSSF, namely Northern Football and provided additional references to show their repeated successes at the highest national level. @ GiantSnowman:, @ Spiderone:, does this change your opinion? I think this is more a case of a new editor not creating the right article title than a non-notable subject and want to avoid any biting. Fenix down ( talk) 16:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Steadfastness and Confrontation Front

Steadfastness and Confrontation Front (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be entirely Original Research Qualitatis ( talk) 09:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep needs more sources for sure, just one external link, but doesn't appear to be WP:OR, as it was formed. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Not 'original research' at all. More sources might be good, but I don't see how this could be mistaken for original research. -- Mrodowicz ( talk) 16:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep I don't see how this is a valid reason to delete. Nonetheless, while researching this topic, I did come across some discrepancies between the sources and this article. I tagged them accordingly, and also added a source to the verifiable information. (There is a possibility that the content I tagged is not OR and that I was simply not thorough enough.) Elspamo4 ( talk) 18:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 15:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Pancho Tequila

Pancho Tequila (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mexican film from 1970 with no references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Standard searches were done and article PROD'd, which was declined by article creator. Sending to AFD. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep Pure laziness. I removed the prod because it's notable, it just needed expanding. In future User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR try searching in google books before nominating or prodding. Oh and please change your user name, it's utterly ridiculous and offputting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll be glad to look at the spanish language sources you added. I checked one already and it was a single mention of the title. [22] The others may be better. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Dear Alphabet soup-named nominator... go read WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and understand WP:COMMONSENSE... something released 20 years pre-internet need not remain in the hardcopy headlines, and there is a reasonable expectation that film with lots of notable Mexican actors would have had coverage 45 years ago. Due diligence, dude... due diligence. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Alts
original:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
type:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep in full agreement with Dr. Blofeld. Being unsourced is NOT a deletion rationale when sources are so easily found available with a little due diligence... even if Spanish. Per WP:HANDLE we fix the fixable, not toss them out of sheer laziness. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I won't claim any particular expertise on Mexican movies, but this has everything I'd expect to see in a notable one: notable director (who directed several Cantinflas features), several notable actors, notable studio. We don't have an article on the main star, but he does appear notable enough for one. The fact that it was released on DVD 35 years after it was made shows some measure of enduring cultural interest. The only issue I see is the image is labeled a poster when it's clearly a DVD cover or something similar, but that's far from cause for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As explained above.-- Ipigott ( talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 16:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Sanjeev Goel

Sanjeev Goel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP, tagged as needing reference improvement since 2010 without further action, of a person notable only as a deputy leader of a minor political party. While the party is one whose leader generally gets over the bar, the same can't be said of the deputies — and being a deputy leader isn't a notability freebie under WP:NPOL. The extant source isn't even substantively about him, either, but merely namechecks his existence — and the article reads very like a campaign brochure, written almost entirely in incomplete sentence fragments and delving far more into unsourced statements of his beliefs and inspirations than into anything encyclopedic that he did. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 09:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Earl Amyotte

Earl Amyotte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as the leader of an unregistered fringe political party. This was fine under the standards that Wikipedia held when it was first created, but consensus changed and this no longer satisfies WP:NPOL. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 09:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some "keep" arguments are notably weak because they don't address the reasons advanced for deletion, such as "as notable as any other video game", or "I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive", when the nomination makes clear that this is not the argument being made here. Among the other opinions, we have consensus that sourcing is too weak at this time to meet WP:GNG.  Sandstein  07:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 (  | 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 understand the WP:NOTCENSORED arguments. This is not about censorship. I am not a Muslim, not personally offended. The reality is, this game has simply not received significant coverage in reliable sources. At the first nomination, some suggested additional coverage would occur. This has not happened. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mandate inclusion of every potentially offensive topic AusLondonder ( talk) 08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Mentions in a couple of articles from outlets such as Vice do not meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
These aren't mere mentions, the sources are reliable and they provide significant coverage which is the definition of GNG passing coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Don't agree. Not all those sources are reliable. AusLondonder ( talk) 10:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Epoch Times, éVice News, Republika, and MeriStation all aren't reliable? Please read WP:RS again. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Throwaway game covered minimally as news posts, no serious reviews or in depth coverage. This has gather less coverage than Vice's London Piss Dungeon. The game is so stupid that there is no serious commentary, compare that with Slave Tetris, where we have coverage into why people believe the game is wrong, and what we can learn from it. [25] [26] - hahnch e n 09:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Are you suggesting that the coverage this game has received is somehow routine? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
No. Its the exact opposite. Video games are things people play for entertainment value. This game is controversial and all coverage about the game is about how it is controversial, not about how the game was made, reviews it received, music, sound, graphics, or any other quality that would be fitting of a video game. For that it fails the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG which is defined as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" [27]. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 03:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG, endorse CerealKillerYum's point that all coverage is about the offensiveness of the name/game. The little coverage there is, is about the controversy not the game itself, which has attracted almost zero coverage. Pincrete ( talk) 11:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There was alot of talk about this game around the time the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened. I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive. Illstillbehere ( talk) 09:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note to reviewing admin: Illstillbehere has 4 edits at this time, 3 of them were to this page, CerealKillerYum ( talk) 09:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
As I made clear, I did not nominate this for its offensiveness or otherwise. I nominated because it is non-notable. AusLondonder ( talk) 09:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG which requires not only significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but also coverage which persists over time. The sources available are so-so, but all of the coverage comes from the same 3-day span, with next to nothing since then (though I'm content to switch my !vote if others find such sources). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This falls under WP:SENSATION. A game, that caught the attention of a small number of media outlets, briefly. a quick search here: [28] I cannot find that it got either enduring or extensive coverage, or that objections to it received significant coverage. Flag me if anyone demonstrates significant coverage, and I'll revisit. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 08:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The game itself seems to fail GNG but the contraversy about it, may not. Is there an article about similar contravercies? It can possibly be merged into it. Settleman ( talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Settleman: The controversy would likewise have to pass WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage [of the controversy] in multiple reliable sources over a period of time. As there seems to be 100% overlap between coverage of the game and coverage of controversy surrounding the game, it seems unlikely sufficient sources about the latter exist. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If there is nowhere to merge it, my vote is Delete. Settleman ( talk) 17:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
They also consistently nominated articles for speedy that are not suitable, eg a peer reviewed journal Electronic Book Review and the Roman Catholic Church in Turkmenistan. Both with actual claims to notability. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rhododendrites: The GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There's nothing in that guideline saying coverage must last for months or years. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to this topic. — Torchiest talk edits 15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

MSP Intermark

MSP Intermark (  | 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 notability guidelines. References are dead links and, if they were to be alive, would have been non-notable sources. Nothing came up in Google News or Google. Author is a SPA [29] CerealKillerYum ( talk) 08:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 08:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 08:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Eclectika (festival)

Eclectika (festival) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by IP without giving any reason. The subject hardly has any coverage given the annual recurring nature of the event. Fails WP:NEVENTS. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
There are various notability points mentioned on WP:EVENT and "took note" is not one of them. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I think WP:EVENT is saying that event should be "Worthy of Notice". The Times of India (TOI) is not only largest selling English daily in India but also in World in terms of circulation. TOI finds it "worthy of notice" and "took note" of this event. This event is not notable unless someone proves that these news are paid news.-- Human3015 Send WikiLove  04:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, we have been interacting on many pages for now; thanks for hounding, and its quite clear that you lack competency to understand many a simple things; sorry to point it out. There is no in-depth coverage, or lasting effects of the event, or coverage outside geoscope, or diversity of coverage, etc etc points that are listed in guideline. Also, the minglebox link that you are posting is not WP:RS. http://www.minglebox.com/aboutus is a student's portal. Dainik Bhaskar which is a newspaper with headquarters in MP cared to write exactly 10 sentences about this event in Raipur. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please don't WP:ACCUSE, there are other boards to raise this "hound" issue, not here. I will clear myself regarding sources, 2013 Times of India, 2014 Times of India. -- Human3015 Send WikiLove  05:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Lauren Manning

Lauren Manning (  | 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: cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate VICTIM; any post 9/11 notability would appear to be a continuing seam or thread from that day onward. I know, I know: I must be a heartless bastard. Quis separabit? 22:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: Agreed, notability isn't fleeting, the book referenced in the article appears to be self published by Lauren's husband and apparently hasn't sold many copies based on it being ranked below #375,000 in books by sales volume. Nefariousski ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. No real reason offered for deletion. WP:VICTIM has nothing to do with WP:N. WP:VICTIM is all about criminal events, not victim-survivors of 9/11. This nomination is bogus. Toffanin ( talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • SisterTwister is a diligent editor, but I have found, as here: Douglas Al-Bazi that her assertions of a lack of sources can be, well, what can I say, I have found extensive sourcing on AFDs brought or supported by SisterTwister, who works very quickly and deserves credit for spotting many, many legitimate candidates for deletion. However, re: Lauren Manning, take a look at this quick search [30] which begins with this full profile in vogue magazine [31]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
And a trout to the Nom for bringing this without a thorough WP:BEFORE. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
My guess is that the page is weak not because the topic is unimportant, but because it is too painful for many of us to deal with. Even after all these years. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep" -- interesting. @E.M. Gregory: are you moving pawns around a chess board or making marionettes dance? I see no keep consensus as of yet, much less a SNOWBALL. Quis separabit? 17:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per above as well as per sources - This is something that should never be deleted and should never have even been nominated, An article likes this needs improving not deleting period. – Davey2010 Talk 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@Davey2010: I mean no disrespect but you should try to base your judgments on guidelines not sentimentality. Your rationale offers no reasoning, just emotion. 9/11 was devastating (I live in Lower Manhatan and was at work a quarter of a mile away from Ground Zero at 26 Federal Plaza that morning, just so you know I am not a heartless dick) but try to keep perspective. Quis separabit? 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
To me, it looks as though User:Davey2010 based him assessment on policy: "as per sources." Followed with an expression of strong feeling, Quis separabit? responded based on feelings. It's oK to have feelings, as long as assessments are based on policy, facts, sources.08:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
E.M.Gregory's correct - I did say "per above as well as per sources" so it wasn't all strong feelings but yes I do have strong feelings when it comes to stuff like this, I very very rarely express my feelings here but I don't see a problem just aslong as you keep it relevant and to the point, Wow I'd imagine that was absolutely terrifying!, I've never thought that about anyone on here at all, You nominated based on notability so it's all cool :) – Davey2010 Talk 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Being a victim of a horrible event is one thing, but the point here is notability. And for this person to be behind a well-received book that's brought them recognition, with the likes of NPR, the New York Times, etc mentioning her story and her book prominently, then it looks like she passes the notability bar easily. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -Enough references provided above to confirm notability. ABF99 ( talk) 15:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to meeting Notability for her story, RS articles from 2008 to 2012, she is also invited to comment on related issues as late as June 2014. [35] Nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON and the article can be easily cleaned up. 009o9 ( talk) 19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources are reliable (NY Times, USA Today, CNN). The book by her husband about her got some national attention (although it itself cannot be considered a neutral source, but it adds to the story). The article is still a stub, and needs work. I was easily able to find 6 NY Times articles specifically about her or with substantial information about her. LaMona ( talk) 03:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against undeletion if notability changes. L Faraone 16:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Sandrembi Chaishra

Sandrembi Chaishra (  | 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 cannot find any sources to show where this film is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. It's possible that there could be sources in another language, but I'm doubtful of this. I'm getting the impression that this is an indie production. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Alts
WP:INDAFD: "Sandrembi Chaishra" "Sandrembi and Chaishra" "Bobby Haobam" "Mahesh Konsam" "Bala Hijam" "Rahul Blue"
Alt:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Music:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete for while not utterly unsourcable, this brand new article is apparently TOO SOON. I found that a music video of a major song from the film was only recently released, [36] and this might indicate the film will follow within six months. Allow undeletion when inclusion criteria are met. If the author wishes it placed in a no-wiki'd draft space for work as release approaches, I'd say let him have it. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Steven M. Berman

Steven M. Berman (  | 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 article is not medicore but could certainly use improvement (information and source-wise) and my searches found nothing particularly good, here, here, here and here. This would've been redirected elsewhere (I was going to be bold but there's no good target) so I'd like to hear from users. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator as per http://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Wikipedia-have-a-page-about-ScoopWhoopCutestPenguin Hangout 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

ScoopWhoop

ScoopWhoop (  | 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 article lacks significance coverage in reliable sources. Most of cited sources are from self-published sources, partner's website and press release; it also fails WP:ORG. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin Hangout 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article reads like an advertisement, prompting me to tag it as such. But that is strictly a content issue. At AfD, all we consider is notability. Under WP:GNG, notability is demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. Those sources clearly exist, as demonstrated by the Business Standard and Quartz articles. Msnicki ( talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Msnicki Note: All the newspaper and related articles cannot be considered to be reliable one; contents published such as press-releases...reviews is not considered to be the reliable one. Even if we consider these two sources as reliable (which is not that effective ) is not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:ORGDEPTH which states dept coverage in multiple reliable sources is needed. — CutestPenguin Hangout 14:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
"Multiple" is generally interpreted as at least two good sources at AfD. The Business Standard and Quartz articles satisfy the requirement. That makes this one a keep. Msnicki ( talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Msnicki You are right but press releases and reviews is not general cited or you can say is not treated as good /reliable references even if they are from great sources. These this and thisresults from Google points QZ more of an partner than an source for reliability to the article which again questions the WP:NEWSORG and WP:IRS. — CutestPenguin Hangout 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
QZ looks reliable to me. From their Welcome to Quartz page, Quartz is owned by Atlantic Media Co., the publisher of The Atlantic, National Journal, and Government Executive. The publisher of The Atlantic is good enough for me. To my continual consternation, we often accept far, far less. Msnicki ( talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Msnicki Even if we consider that as the reliable one, it fails the WP:ORG since coverage in depth in multiple sources is need. — CutestPenguin Hangout 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
For someone who claims "near-native" command of English, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with the language. I cited TWO RS in my !vote and that's definitely multiple. Msnicki ( talk) 19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Msnicki Read once, twice and thrice everything posted under this Afd. Let me quote the cause for you, the great Englishmen "your multiple" sources is actually not multiple as per Wikipedia's policy WP:IRS (give yourself sometime and read carefully WP:IRS). Note: ...press releases, interviews...reviews etc. is not always accepted as "the reliable source" even if it from those great sources.. And don't force me to drag your fluent English here. — CutestPenguin Hangout 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
If you're going to quote WP:IRS, it should be an actual quote, not something manufactured out of your imagination. That page simply does not say what you claim it does. You've made it up out of whole cloth. You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how specious but I have mine. I think these sources qualify and I don't think you know what you're talking about. I am done with you. Let's see what others have to say. Msnicki ( talk) 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
...press releases, interviews...reviews etc. is not always accepted as "the reliable source" even if it from those great sources., was not my personal views or imagination (you can verify the facts here WP:SIGCOV, Notability (media) and WP:3PARTY. Anyways lets wait and see what other say. Thanks — CutestPenguin Hangout 03:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The article is calming to be a news and media company but does not meets the Wikipedia's criteria for notability for organizations and companies nor it have significant coverage in reliable sources, except those press-releases and reviews which is again not treated as the reliable source.  D Mi 18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What's wrong with the Business Standard and Quartz articles? Msnicki ( talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

http://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/Blend-of-Courage-and-Bravery-5-Param-Vir-Chakra-Stories-Every-Indian-Must-Read-nid-187008-cid-1.html http://www.bangaloremirror.com/columns/sunday-read/Streaming-goes-mainstream/articleshow/48839477.cms http://www.mumbrella.asia/2015/06/outbrain-announces-scoopwhoop-storypick-and-indian-express-as-new-publishing-partners-in-india/ http://www.indiantelevision.com/mam/marketing/outbrain-expands-network-to-drive-growth-for-indian-publishers-150616 61.12.32.78 ( talk) 19:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Jimbo Wales: have not specified about the existence of the article on the Wikipedia, instead he emphasised that it is not possible legitimately to have an article about the subject. In fact he questioned about the background of the so called company. — CutestPenguin Hangout 12:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sir, Jimmy Wales typed " I do think that a small article could legitimately be written." Please check you might have read incorrectly. And even this was nine month back since then the company has become even more famous and notable. And can you please point to the parts that seem advertorial to you , I will rectify them and add neutral tone to them. P.S.-Sorry for my grammatical mistakes. I am not a native. Blessedhuman111 ( talk) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah! got it. — CutestPenguin Hangout 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Miss Earth titleholders. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Miss Earth runners-up and finalists

List of Miss Earth runners-up and finalists (  | 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:LISTCRUFT The Banner  talk 16:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Rugby AM

Rugby AM (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a television series produced by and aired on a single local television station in a single media market. WP:NMEDIA only grants a presumption of notability to nationally-distributed series, not to local ones — and the lack of sourcing means that this doesn't get to claim a WP:GNG pass in lieu of failing NMEDIA. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with UnitedHealth Group. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Logistics Health Incorporated

Logistics Health Incorporated (  | 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 insurance business with coverage all sourced to local daily paper; less than 1,000 employees, now a division of a bigger company. Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will userfy upon request for the purposes of merging useful information. Swarm 03:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Dating Violence Awareness Week

Dating Violence Awareness Week (  | 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 absolutely nothing to suggest improvement, there's no good move target and there haven't been any significant edits since the beginning in March 2009. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The article currently focuses solely on the awareness week in Singapore, but this is also recognized in the US. From Emily Fund: "In 2008, the US Senate unanimously apporoved S. Res. 710 declaring the first week of February as "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week," and on January 25, 2010, the Senate expanded the observance by declaring the month of February as "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness & Prevention Month" (S. Res. 373)." gobonobo + c 23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete most of this article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of Dating abuse. A mention of these "awareness weeks" may be made there. Kraxler ( talk) 00:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The article has been edited to completely change the scope and actual content, so I withdraw my !vote. Kraxler ( talk) 18:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Re-evaluating what the article looks like now, and apparently nothing more is coming, the article fails WP:NEVENT, with special mention of WP:GEOSCOPE. It was a local one-time event without WP:LASTING impact. Kraxler ( talk) 17:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep There are plenty of news articles and websites covering this in the US. The article can be significantly improved and quite easily with little effort. As for the AfD, the nominator is asking for a delete based on an editing issue and obviously did not do a basic search on the term. The nominator claims there is no info for improvement. It's a week in February recognized in Texas, Ohio and other states... it seems that it may have been federally recognized. Now if we're looking at it as a singapore-only event, it still may be notable! Not finding information on the web doesn't mean it's not important... much info about Singapore news is available only thru lexis nexus. In addition the amount of information I just turned up on Google alone should be enough to warrant its own article... esp if the scope is global. Also... the lack of improvement shouldn't warrant an AfD. Be bold and fix the article yourself or bring it to the attention of active interested WikiProjects. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

We already have an article on Dating abuse. It's not necessary, and fails the notability guidelines, to have a separate article on an "awareness week". Kraxler ( talk) 16:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If there are enough independent sources it doesn't fail notability. An awareness week can be notable. There seem to be a lot of articles on the topic in the US. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
This article is about an awareness week in Singapore, and has a single source from Singapore. If you want to write an article about several awareness weeks in different places, go right ahead, and see whether it passes AfD. We are concerned now with this article, as is. Kraxler ( talk) 03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
AfD should be used if there is no way to improve an article. As I've pointed out, there are several good ways to do so. AfD doesn't just mean looking at the article as it is now; articles may still be notable even if they do not contain the relevant existing information in them. See: WP:NEXIST The article needs copyedit. This should have taken place on the talk page of the article, not gone to AfD. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Feel free to improve the article, it's allowed during AfD, but please do address the WP:CONTENTFORK problem. Also, stand-alone notability of this "event" has not been shown yet. Kraxler ( talk) 15:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: These events are distinct from the general concept of dating abuse; they reflect activism to address the problem. Yes, the article needs work, but deletion is not the answer. This is a women's event in Singapore, which in and of itself is remarkable. Clear evidence of third-party coverage, and no doubt more out there if anyone can address the language barrier. Frankly, I'm kind of offended by Kraxler's tone that implies that this is an irrelevant event of no consequence. We have a lot of problems with systemic bias on wikipedia and this dismissive tone toward both women's issues and an Asian topic suggests this is a factor to be considered. Montanabw (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I wish !voters would stick to the issue, instead of accusing others of bad faith. My !vote was cast when the article lokked like this. Megalibrarygirl has edited it in the meanwhile, but needed to be reminded that speculating about what an article could look like is not equivalent to actually making an article show its notability and stand-alone usefulness. Kraxler ( talk) 17:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Notability depends on being shown. In this case, the article was a content fork. Content forks are usually deleted for reasons other than notability. Please don't mix up apples and oranges. Kraxler ( talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge See WP:CONTENTFORK! This issue needs to be solved before we look at notability and references. MrWooHoo ( talk) 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Local events of this sort are not worth merging to the general article, towards which it makes no contribution whatsoever. This is essentially a PR for the event, and there's a good case for deleting it as G11. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This doesn't even approach the notability criteria for a stand-alone article. It is a purely local event, written purely to promote the first (and only?) one in Singapore in 2009. In case no one has noticed, there is no mention out there (or in the article) of any further such weeks in Singapore, despite the claim in the article that it is an "annual event". I've done a pretty thorough search, but if anyone finds sources indicating that it has been held in Singapore and received received significant coverage in the ensuing years, I'd be happy to change my mind. A brief summary, minus the padding can be added to Teen dating violence, which as it is, is tagged (and rightly so) as not representing a worldwide view of the subject. That atrociously organized article, full of original research and written like an essay, gives massively undue weight to the US, with two lines about the UK, one line about Canada and... er... that's it. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
On a related note, in Singapore "Dating Violence Awareness Week" was the second week in February. In the US, "Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" is apparently the first week in February, and Chicago seems to have organized its own version of "Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" for the third week October. A separate article on Dating violence awareness with an international scope might be possible, but that's not what this article is (or even can be, given its title). Voceditenore ( talk) 18:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. At this point we have verifiability without notability. Even if one evaluates it as a fork, it should be merged back to its parent, but as has been mentioned, this non-notable content is of no benefit there. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can find no references to support this (the event in Singapore) beyond the 2009 launch. If such references exist in other languages, maybe the route to take is to create this article in the appropriate language version of Wikipedia, then have it translated to English if it then meets our notability requirements. I would also support a move to something like Dating violence awareness/advocacy as previously suggested, with a more global view, which I would consider to be a more encylopaedic approach; or merge this into Dating abuse with the option of spinning it out later to a seperate article if it becomes too unwieldy. Derek Andrews ( talk) 11:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Incubate - an option I wasn't aware of until now, per WP:ATD-I. It would seem to me to be a way to enable those who see potential in an article of some nature on this topic to work on it without threat of deletion. Derek Andrews ( talk) 12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The appropriate place for almost all "awareness weeks" is a brief mention in the topic article, in this case Dating abuse. There is nothing much to say about the week, except possible lists of misc. dates. See WP:NOT. There is a lot to say about the topic, and that article is where it should be said. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Massimiliano Cerchi

Massimiliano Cerchi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searched found nothing good at all to suggest improvement and better independent notability with the best results of all my searches here and, as an orphan, I'm not seeing a good move target for this article from February 2007. Pinging taggers @ The JPS and Geniac:. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Valerie Garcia

Valerie Garcia (  | 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 insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 06:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Chosen Dance Company

Chosen Dance Company (  | 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'm not entirely sure if this is notable as my searches found no considerably good coverage here, here and here (all three were the best results). Notifying author Benjancewicz. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Abilis Solutions

Abilis Solutions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches found nothing aside from press releases and other minor coverage here, here, here and here (searches at Montreal Gazette, browser and CBC found nothing). I was also happening to notice this has stayed since November 2008 and, although it has been edited since, it has not been significant improvement thus less chances why to keep longer. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

David John Jeffery

David John Jeffery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author of unclear notability. Reliable, third party sources have not been forthcoming. Josh Milburn ( talk) 11:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 13:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 13:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Lifehouse International Church. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 16:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Lifehouse International Church Taipei

Lifehouse International Church Taipei (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy notability criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), especially it lacks reports from independent sources Jlicy ( talk) 14:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 15:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 15:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 15:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Merging is a good idea indeed. I don't see much salvageable content though, for lack of independent references. Jlicy ( talk) 11:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The WP:SELFSOURCE information from this article can be used as sources in the merged to article, just can't be the source for notability for this article-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 19:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Any redirect is a separate editorial decision.  Sandstein  07:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Iran-IAEA side deals

Iran-IAEA side deals (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a WP:POINTY fork of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action which was created by a declared SPA User:Iran nuclear weapons 2 whose User page claims his account is a valid alt account because he's afraid of being assassinated by Iran if his primary account is exposed ... I'm pretty sure VAJA has better things to do than go after Wikipedia editors in (Redacted) ... BlueSalix ( talk) 16:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

OH sheesh, the "redacted" bit was Wasilla, Alaska ... see: [37]. I note this just so we aren't reinforcing "Iran Nuclear Weapons 2" ultra-disruptive, Islamaphobic paranoia/James Bond fantasy that someone actually knew where he was located and Iranian commandos are descending on his home at this very moment because of an edit he made on WP. (It is slightly concerning this has to be explained.) BlueSalix ( talk) 06:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge -- the whole thing has a strong feel of being a fork, of a kind that it usually best merged back to the main article. I have not considered whether there is anything worth merging (as opposed to a plain redirect). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No meeting of the minds occurred here, and there were reasonable policy arguments advanced by each side. The article has been made more neutral, and I encourage editors to aggressively ensure that it remains so prior to the election. No prejudice to renomination should the subject not prevail. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ken McDonald (politician)

Ken McDonald (politician) (  | 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 person notable as the mayor of a town of 25K — which is not large enough to confer automatic inclusion rights on a mayor under WP:NPOL — and as an as yet unelected candidate in a future election — which is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia if they haven't already passed an inclusion rule for some other reason. The sourcing here fails to adequately demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm for a small-town mayor (e.g. by virtue of having become well-known outside of his local area), so there's no strong basis for an exemption from the 50K-minimum test for mayors, and candidates do not get articles just for being candidates — so he'll absolutely be eligible for an article if he wins his seat on October 19, but nothing here adequately demonstrates that he's earned an article today. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in October if he wins. Bearcat ( talk) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The Nalcor controversy would qualify as WP:BLP1E if it was a major controversy, since it is the only thing that got him a little extra attention. If it was a minor controversy it's still part of WP:ROUTINE, minor controversies happen everywhere, even in the smallest populated places. Did any national neswpaper report on the Nalcor controversy? Kraxler ( talk) 13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
This article doesn't meet the criteria for WP:BLP1E. McDonald is not just notable for one thing, since he derives coverage and notability from his elected office as well as events he did in that office (e.g. Nalcor). As mayor of a major provincial municipality, and now a federal candidate, he's not a low profile individual, but a very public one, which BLP1E explicitly does not apply to ("WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals."). Yahoo New Canada saw fit to mirror the CBC articles on Nalcor [38], [39]. Though lack of national coverage (especially where there's significant amounts of provincial and local coverage) doesn't make it routine as defined in WP:ROUTINE. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 19:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I suggest you read again WP:NPOL # 2 "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". And WP:NPOL # 3 "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The refs in the article are not in-depth on McDonald, and a few stories in local newspapers/TV can not be considered "significant coverage". Kraxler ( talk) 19:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
As I've noted throughout this AfD, my position (backed by a reading of POLOUTCOMES) is that as regionally important mayor, McDonald counts as an major local political figure. The article clearly goes beyond his electoral record and cites instances where's he's made provincial and regional new (e.g. Nova Scotian news and Atlantic Canada news for his construction projects), which I think constitutes significant and independent coverage. The NALCOR articles are entirely about McDonald's role in the dispute, and of the other sources, one is an interview with the leading provincial paper and another is with a 1v1 interview with NTV, a leading provincial television network. These are IMHO in-depth sources. Even if there is no national level coverage, the depth and frequency of provincial sources (yes by accident of geography, CBS is on the Avalon Peninsula along with St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, so all major provincial news outlets are technically local), combined with his position as a regionally important mayor are enough to justify keeping the article. Since we fundamentally disagree on the definition of the terms, it'll be up to the closing admin to decide. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 02:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Interviews with the subject in media don't count toward satisfying WP:GNG, because they involve the subject talking about himself. To count toward GNG, a source has to involve other people talking about him. Bearcat ( talk) 17:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I brought up the interviews to show that there were clearly in-depth, non-cursory coverage of McDonald among the refs. All the other sources in the article are independent, non-interviews and are mostly similarly in-depth. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Probably the most ridiculous nomination I've ever seen; the man is clearly notable, has received substantial coverage in the media during his mayoralty, and is the political candidate for a major position. The sources "adequately demonstrate" that he deserves an article. And, by the way, your link, WP:NPOL mentions nothing about a mayor needing 50,000 residents to be notable. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 18:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
NPOL # 2 says notable are "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. This is a minor local politician, major local politicians hold office in a capital city or in a city with a million inhabitants, or in cities known all over the world. I've never heard about Conception Bay South before, and I'm a geography buff. Sorry, but guidelines should guide us, not be treated with contempt. Kraxler ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
We have lots of articles on minor politicians who don't hold office in a capital city or in a city with a million inhabitants or cities that are known all over the world, see Rhode Island House of Representatives and scroll down to the list of members, nearly all of them are blue links. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 00:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Those are state-level politicians, not local ones — a state legislature is an entirely different level of office, with an entirely different set of applicable notability standards, than a city council is. Kraxler is mostly correct about what our standards for local politicians are — to be fair, our standard for mayors isn't actually as restrictive as our standard for city councillors is, but CBS still isn't large or prominent enough to pass our standard for mayors and it's in no way equivalent to a state or provincial legislature. And you can't just read WP:NPOL and think you fully understand our notability standards for politicians — you also need to read WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearcat ( talk) 03:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"is the political candidate for a major position" carries no weight under Wikipedia's inclusion standards. As already explained, being an unelected candidate for a seat in the House of Commons is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — if you cannot adequately show that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before he became a candidate for a seat in the HoC, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And no, you haven't adequately shown that he garnered sufficient notability from the mayoralty either. Bearcat ( talk) 03:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Talk about deletionism, those are essays, not policies. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 04:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Read WP:ONLYESSAY if you think that assertion carries any weight whatsoever. Bearcat ( talk) 04:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The point is I don't agree with the essay. Notability of McDonald is established by his references in reliable sources. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 04:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Not if those reliable sources are covering him in the context of a role that doesn't qualify him for an encyclopedia article, it isn't. Local media have an obligation to cover local politics, so coverage of his candidacy for an office that he hasn't been elected to yet falls under WP:ROUTINE, not WP:GNG — and once you discount those sources, what's left isn't even approaching the lower edges of the volume of coverage of his mayoralty that it would take to grant him NPOL #3 or a GNG-based exemption from our minimum population standards for mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 04:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
User:SuperCarnivore591, NPOL is a guideline, not an essay. POLOUTCOMES is a mirror of the past (aka "precedent"), not somebody's personal opinion (as most essays may be). ROUTINE and GNG are guidelines too. Accusing people of trying to delete an article for no other reason than being "deletionists" violates WP:AGF which is a fundamental principle (two steps above guideline). Kraxler ( talk) 15:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The fact of the matter is that too many people have strict standards for article inclusion, such as a mayor needing 50,000 residents for an article. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 15:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Standards follow consensus, established by the community. If the subject fails the standards, there's not much we can do about it. We have actually (currently at AfD) articles on city councillors who got less than 300 votes in a Chilean city, and the author thinks that these are extremely important people. So, some editors use their own standards when it comes to include their favorite subjects here, but everybody is supposed to bow to the community standards. That's why we have guidelines. Kraxler ( talk) 15:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
And POLOUTCOMES says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". In this case, the mayor of the second largest municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador would in fact be a major local figure in the province, whereas the same would not necessarily be true for a mayor of a similarly sized municipality in a more populous province like Ontario or Quebec. Since coverage of McDonald in the article goes beyond the fact that he's CBS's mayor, I don't think POLOUTCOMES applies here.-- -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia grants no weight to where a municipality ranks in any given list of municipalities. The only automatic "exemption" that's granted for a city below 50K is if it's the capital of a state, province or country. And the only way the coverage goes anywhere beyond the fact of being a mayor is into his as yet unelected candidacy for a more notable office. He'll be eligible for an article if he wins the federal seat, but nothing here gets him over any of our inclusion rules now. Bearcat ( talk) 04:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that POLOUTCOMES disagrees with you, because it specifically mentions "regional prominence" as a factor in evaluating AfD candidates. A municipality of 25k in a province where it's the second largest of its kind has regional prominence. A similarly sized one in a province where it would't break the top 50 municipalities (e.g. Ontario) would have considerably less regional prominence. The article goes into some detail about events during his term as mayor as expected of an article on a mayor. My position is that based on his current elected position and the available sources, he's notable enough for his own article. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 19:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"Regional prominence" is not defined as subjective to the relative size of other municipalities in the same area; it's defined by longstanding AFD consensus as either (a) a minimum population of 50K, or (b) special allowance for a few cities (e.g. Charlottetown) which fall below that figure but are a state, provincial or federal capital. Absent one of those two conditions, it's either "more notable than the norm for cities of its size, for some substantively nationalized and well-sourced reason", or bust. Bearcat ( talk) 17:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If "regional prominence" is not defined as prominence in the region, than the phrase should be removed from POLOUTCOMES and explicitly replaced with the requirements that you and Kraxler have repeated throughout this AfD. No more of this, "these have always been the unwritten rules", when essays like POLOUTCOMES are the places for such matters of longstanding AfD consensus. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You're the one concocting your own self-serving definition of "regional prominence", not me. The problem with your interpretation is that even a village of less than 100 people can be argued as "regionally prominent", if one defines "region" narrowly enough — which is why AFD has a longstanding standard, fully established by thousands of prior AFDs, for what size of community is or isn't accepted as satisfying "regional prominence". And accordingly, it's not within your right to dictate what the people who are familiar with the established precedent are or aren't allowed to say "more of this" or not — consensus makes the rules here, not you. Bearcat ( talk) 23:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That's a strawman; no one is advocating that broad of an interpretation of "regionally prominent." I've said that CBS is regionally prominent because it's the second largest municipality in a top-level sub-national polity (in this case, a Canadian province). I don't think this is an unreasonable exception to the 50k population or capital consensus on a case by case basis where reliable sources exist. I also don't think it's unreasonable that if the 50k population/capital is the precedent set by most past cases, that it should be stated as such in POLOUTCOMES, which is meant to be a repository of common AfD outcomes. I was not trying to dictate what others can and cannot say, I was just expressing my unfavourable opinion of arguments that are essentially "this is the longstanding precedent" without linking to a policy/guideline/essay to back those specific claims about precedent. I apologize if I came off as trying to silence other participants.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Close call. Elected mayor of the second largest town in a province — still small, so borderline under the Special Notability Guideline for politicians. I am satisfied that this is a GNG pass based on footnotes showing on the page, however — he's a public figure. Carrite ( talk) 04:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mainly per above. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources per GNG, so it should be kept. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete He's getting CBC coverage (which I assume is national) but I agree with Bearcat that as only a candidate for a country-wide election he is on tenuous grounds for a WP article. As a winner of that election, he could well be notable. But if he loses, will this article be revised? Deleted? Or will it just linger here? That to me is the main reason to wait until after the election. LaMona ( talk) 04:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify, while the CBC as a whole is certainly a national entity, the coverage in question isn't coming from the national news division — it's from their local news bureau in St. John's, so it doesn't prove that he's actually getting coverage anywhere outside of his own local area yet. Bearcat ( talk) 16:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The "local" news bureau in St. John's serves the entire province of Newfoundland and Labrador. While it's not the national bureau, it's also not as local as the Shoreline News source, which is a CBS local paper. Regional CBC bureaus combine a mix of local journalism and serious journalism that could be used to show notability. -- -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
There's a difference between "getting provincewide coverage because he's actually a figure of genuinely provincewide notability" and "getting provincewide coverage only because the media outlet in question only has one bureau in the province, and thus every single story they cover automatically goes provincewide whether it's actually of any meaningful provincewide interest or not". McDonald is in the latter camp, not the former. The CBC is obviously a reliable source in principle — but by virtue of the way the CBC is structured, all CBC local bureau coverage, not just in St. John's but everywhere else in Canada too, automatically gets redistributed to at least half of its entire province, so the local bureaux can't in and of themselves prove that a person of local notability has passed the "covered outside his own local area" hump. Bearcat ( talk) 17:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, regional CBC bureaus produce banal local news, but they also produce quality journalism. Doing a rudimentary google search of the CBC.ca site also shows that McDonald gets about twice as much coverage as other Newfoundland mayors except for the mayor of St. Johns. This argument also ignores the coverage from non-CBC sources like the St. John's Telegram, Atlantic Construction News, Newfoundland Television, the Nova Scotia Business Journal. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The quality of the journalism that the CBC does isn't the issue (go ahead and just try to find where I said anything even slightly disparaging of the CBC's journalism as a matter of principle.) The issue is the scope of notability that the journalism in question demonstrates — the fact that NTV and the CBC's station in St. John's have repeater transmitters outside of St. John's as well does not automatically nationalize their local coverage of local personalities and issues in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 23:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
My point is that because the output of the regional bureaus is a mix of local journalism and issues of provincial importance, judging scope isn't as well-defined as you make it out to be. As you said you can't prove that a person covered by those bureaus is covered outside the local area. However you also can't just dismiss all coverage from the regional bureau as not showing that the mayor of CBS gets coverage from more than the local area. Actions taken by McDonald as mayor have been published in non-Newfoundland journals like the Nova Scotia Business Journal and Atlantic Construction News. McDonald also gets widespread coverage at the provincial level, including more CBC coverage than any other non-St. John's mayor. I think these demonstrate his regional importance and that national coverage isn't necessary in this case. The case of Christine O'Donnell is irrelevant because O'Donnell was just a candidate and never held any elected office of the mayoral level of higher, whereas McDonald has. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
All candidates in all elections always generate local coverage, so that type of coverage does not contribute to getting a person over WP:GNG — an as-yet-unelected candidate for office gets over GNG only if the coverage nationalizes in a Christine O'Donnell sort of way. And there isn't enough coverage of him specifically in the context of his mayoralty to grant him an exemption from the fact that our inclusion standards for mayors require a minimum population of 50K — they are not based on where the municipality ranks in a list of the province's municipalities arrayed by population, but are based solely on the raw population figure itself. Bearcat ( talk) 03:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You keep saying a mayor needs at least 50,000 residents in his town/city to be eligible enough for inclusion, yet haven't provided a link to a Wikipedia policy that says so. That's because it is not true. Nowhere in our policies does it say that. Please provide a link to this so-called "inclusion standard." A person being a mayor just needs to generate sufficient, third-party independent coverage to be considered notable, not to have a minimum of 50,000 residents. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You're right. There's no requirement for 50k, it's more like a million inhabitants, except provincial/state/national capitals. And there's WP:GEOSCOPE, I asked up there, and will ask again, has any national or foreign newspaper reported on the Nalcor controversy? If not, it remains local ROUTINE coverage. On a side note, I find it odd, that an editor of one month of Wiki presence is trying to lecture experienced AfD participants on the guidelines. Kraxler ( talk) 18:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That's quite an arbitrarily high requirement. GEOSCOPE applies only to events, and in any case, McDonald has gotten repeated coverage in several reputable provincial news sources. An editor of one month who's made nearly 2k edits is more than welcome to participate in AFD discussions and argue for a side. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 20:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Kraxler, you still haven't provided links to any policies that a mayor would need 50,000 inhabitants to have a Wikipedia article in provincial/state/national capitals, much less 1,000,000 (!) for mayors who serve every other kind of population. I know the 1,000,000 figure definitely can't be right; I can't imagine any such bogus requirement. Notability is not based on raw numbers. And another thing, please don't try to wikilawyer out of this by saying I can't criticize your AfD actions because I've only been here for a month (I've been here longer than that). SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
There is no absolute (or actually any) number written in the guideline, my comment was based on WP:POLOUTCOMES, precedent and experience in AfD discussions. That doesn't bar you from arguing for the contrary. Back to the main issue, this seeming to be a very borderline case, I'm giving the subject the benefit of the doubt, and strike my !vote. Kraxler ( talk) 14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
50K is an established consensus established by a wealth of past AFD discussions on mayors of similarly-sized municipalities; those past discussions have indeed established a long-standing precedent that in a city of this size, coverage of a mayor has to nationalize, demonstrating significance far beyond the purely local, before they can be granted an override of the population size criterion. It doesn't have to be explicitly written into policy to be relevant and true; one needs to also be familiar with the conventions and precedents that AFD has established, and a 50K minimum for a mayor to get "automatically in because mayor" rights, with exceptions granted only if you can properly source "way more notable than usual, because national coverage", is one of those established precedents. Bearcat ( talk) 16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Kraxler, 1,000,000+ is the approximate minimum standard for city councillors, not for mayors. The minimum standard for mayors is considerably lower than that. Bearcat ( talk) 16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm quite experienced in AfD matters, but I wasn't aware of the 50K consensus for mayors. Thanks for telling me about it. However, I think it is too low, and I expect future arguments about notability-by-size in future AfDs, considering the appearance of new users at these dabates who are likewise unaware of such consensus, and no written rule which specifies this number. We'll have to be patient, like Sisyphus. Kraxler ( talk) 17:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The blatant campaign advertising was my prime concern, as can be seen in my first post, way up there. Maybe the article should be trimmed down to half the current size. The elections will be held in a month, and we'll be older and wiser by then. If he wins the article stands anyway, if not... Kraxler ( talk) 17:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I've cut down the article text by about 40% and removed all material that I think could be seen as promotional. Although it's not a valid deletion argument, projections for the electoral district McDonald is running in gave him nearly a 90% chance of winning the riding. -- -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Neelakshi Singh

Neelakshi Singh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Longtime (February 2010), unsourced and basically nn-notable bio with my searches finding absolutely nothing good aside from some here (BehindWoods link is found once at News). There's not much info and it's vague about her roles and career. Notifying the only still active tagger Shirik. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete without any further indication of notability I can't find how this meets WP:GNG (or any other notability guideline). -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 02:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Timothy Christian (film producer)

Timothy Christian (film producer) (  | 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 Google test. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: Here is Google Search and Google News Search by me. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. Article revamped as per WP:HEYMANN. MannTinsa ( talk) 05:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC. Coverage is not substantial, none of the cited sources are actually about the subject. One sentence mentions (trivial coverage) in articles about other topics does not demonstrate notability. dissolve talk 06:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Patient ombudsman

Patient ombudsman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 08:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
This needs better coverage for a better article as there's currently not much. SwisterTwister talk 16:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. The only editors to argue for keeping provided no policy-based arguments. I also note that all the keep !voters have extremely limited editing history, and one of them has been indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

David A Lickstein

David A Lickstein (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially non-notable doctor. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources are mainly minor, mostly of the directory or listing type. He is briefly quoted in a couple of short (1-2 paragraph) articles. Many of the sources are from organizations he belongs to. (Jupiter Meds, in particular.) The publications that laud him are not significant. So we are lacking reliable sources, and there is nothing to show that he is notable. There is an air of promotion about the article. LaMona ( talk) 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The "Top Doctor" awards are far from establishing notability. This list (of a couple of dozen doctors in a small geographic area) comes from a company that names thousands of "top doctors" every year (one article said 6,000 [42]). Hospitals pay to have their doctors publicly visible in these lists. [43] While this particular company is considered to be honest, being one of thousands in this list is like being listed by the Better Business Bureau. It helps consumers, but it's not a sign of notability. LaMona ( talk) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - I don't feel very strongly about this case, but the sourcing is quite weak. Several cites are to a regulatory website, one to a lifestyle magazine, and the others to industry publications. So can we have more tests, doc? Bearian ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can see element of notability in some of the references. However, the write may be asked to source for more usable references to boost the article. Odogu ( talk) 12:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Userfy. Searches did not turn up anything to suggest this person meets the notability criteria. But it's a new article, and the article's creator might be able to turn up something I missed. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Userfy Per Onel15969, references don't prove WP:GNG and should be userfy(ed?) for more development. MrWooHoo ( talk) 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete., and absolutely do not userify. This is straightforward promotionalism for a plastic surgeon, by a SPA, and should have been removed as G11. There is nothing here to indicate that a proper article will ever be possible.I see no valid references; everything here is a essentially a press release; a "Top Doctor" reference from the "Palm Beacher Magazine" is not notability--those sort of publications have no authority whatsoever. If it is, it would need to be done by someone with the obvious COI here. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Sources do not assert notability, as most of them solely mention the doctor and don't go into much detail about the doctor himself. There's also WP:NPOV issues as well given the wording in the "plastic surgery career" section. Aerospeed ( Talk) 13:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Pendulum Films

Pendulum Films (  | 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 seek reliable sources about the importance of this subject. TheGGoose ( talk) 21:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Gabby Best

Gabby Best (  | 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 an actress and writer, making no substantive claim of notability that would satisfy either WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR and citing no reliable source coverage — it just asserts her existence, and parks on her IMDb profile as its sole "source". And, in fact, if you compare the statement of who she is in the IMDb profile to the statement of who she is in this article, it becomes painfully clear that the creator directly imported the IMDb statement and rephrased it just enough to avoid a literal WP:COPYVIO, without actually adding anything else to it beyond a virtual replication of the IMDb profile. An actress does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because she exists — it takes reliable source coverage about her to get her in here, but none has been shown. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Aquarian dawn

Aquarian dawn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found nothing about this subject, at least any mention of it, besides a Soundcloud account and maybe somewhere in MySpace. TheGGoose ( talk) 23:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 07:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JAaron95 Talk 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Henry McPherrar

Henry McPherrar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardly found anything about this person and his works that would have this article sustained in Wikipedia. This is the only source I can find, which includes a mention. TheGGoose ( talk) 05:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If this isn't a hoax, this is the best kept pulp fiction gem of all time. (Well, ok, I know a few others). I can't find any evidence of his existence, doing searches only on his last name since his first name seems to vary from Henry to Hank and more. No evidence of his books in libraries or bookstores. No evidence of his Hollywood work in IMDB. I really hope that someone hits the jackpot and finds the hidden cache of information that will bring this person to light. Until then... LaMona ( talk) 04:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and I almost feel this almost qualified for speedy as my searches found nothing good at all and mostly simply mirrors. Pinging tagger I dream of horses for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Google brings up nothing useable, like LaMona even searching using the surname only reveals nil worldcat library holdings [45]. With his apparent prodigious output ("For the next 3 decades he would write 3 to 4 novels a year.") i would expect something to appear at least on bookseller/auction sites but even searching these proved fruitless (probably because of small print runs his books are rare and highly collectable ). ps. what is the "1947 booker award"? Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete pretty funny, actually. But, delete, since it is a hoax and all. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Luana (singer)

Luana (singer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches found nothing and, based from the article's current content, it's unlikely she ever got much attention much less likely enough to improve this article. It's worth noting this has stayed basically the same since starting in February 2005 and there's no obvious move target. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Arizona Diamondbacks first-round draft picks. MBisanz talk 00:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Bobby Borchering

Bobby Borchering (  | 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 minor league baseball player. Wizardman 03:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The third source provided is pretty good, and puts his notability on the border at least. Not going to withdraw, but I'm now neutral bordering on keep after a close review of the provided sources and a closer check for others out there. Wizardman 21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 10:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That should certainly be the default if he doesn't pass individual notability. Rlendog ( talk) 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ( non-admin closure) -- Orduin Discuss 21:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Association of Late-Deafened Adults

Association of Late-Deafened Adults (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches found several results here, here, here, here (Scholar, passing mentions), here and here but nothing to make considerable, even minimally, improvement and there's hardly any significant edits since March 2004 and no good move target. Although it seems fairly well known in its field and has made recommendations for hearing enhancement measures in theatres, there's not much else. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep perhaps a ref improve tag, but plenty of sources to do an informative article, which I did update somewhat.
  1. Seibel, Tom (27 October 1990). "Conference tackles problems of adults who lose hearing". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  2. CIEPLY, MICHAEL (21 November 2014). "Theater Owners Join Effort to Add Captioning to Films". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  3. Loudon, Bennett J. (3 December 2014). "Feds planning new rules on movie captions". USA Today. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  4. "New software for Google Glass provides captions for hard-of-hearing users" (2 October 2014). Phys.org. 2 October 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2015. "Foley and the students are working with the Association of Late Deafened Adults in Atlanta to improve the program."

-- 009o9 ( talk) 21:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The references above are places where the organization is quoted or mentioned (sometimes in a single sentence) on a general issue, not places which discuss the organization. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Google books and Google scholar are better places to look for this sort of thing than the popular press. The article does need rewriting. Two references: Woodcock, Kathryn (1996). "The Association of Late-Deafened Adults: Rationale, Highlights, History" (PDF). In Mervin D. Garretson (ed.). Deafness: Historical Perspectives. National Association of the Deaf. p. 155to160. ISBN  978-0-913072-84-4. and Dalebout, Susan (2009). The Praeger Guide to Hearing and Hearing Loss: Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention. ABC-CLIO. p. 228. ISBN  978-0-313-36476-1..— Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma ( talkcontribs) 04:03, 31 August 2015
  • Weak Delete - a tough one. There are a bunch of sources, but the only ones that seem to cover the organization beyond a mention, citation, or affiliated person, are primary sources (e.g. the one posted by StarryGranma directly above). I'd prefer a merge, but don't see any suitable target ( post-lingual deafness?) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources exist, but concern has been raised that they do not substantially cover the organization. Another relist is needed to come to consensus. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
MrWooHoo Well, FWIW, the author was a SPA and never seemed to come again last March 2004 (and hardly anyone else has significantly edited the article enough) and chances are very likely they're not returning. If it was userfied, that would simply host it and someone else would have to attend to it. SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Dalebout, Susan (2009). The Praeger Guide to Hearing and Hearing Loss: Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention. Westport, Connecticut: ABC-CLIO. p. 228. ISBN  0313364761. Retrieved 2015-09-14.

      The book notes on page 128:

      Another support/advocacy organization, The Association of Late-Deafened Adults (ALDA), was founded in 1987. For the most part, its members are adults who grew up hearing but are now unable to understand speech without visual aids such as speechreading, sign language, or captioning. The organization's goal is to advocate for relevant legislation, rehabilitation programs, employment opportunities, and communication services. The organization also provides personal support to late-deafened adults as they adjust to becoming deaf. Networking opportunities are offered through local chapters and an annual conference. The association publishes a quarterly newsletter "that blends humor and sensitivity along with first-hand accounts of the frequent absurdities of deafened life.

    2. Dumais, Christian A. (1991-02-08). "Group helps those with hearing loss". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.

      The article notes:

      ALDA, the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, is an international group that recently permitted Ms. Ward to open a chapter in Pasco County

      ...

      The association is for people 21 and older who have a mild or severe hearing impairment and need support. People who attend ALDA meetings can communicate through lip reading, sign language or even written notes.

      ALDA was started by Bill Graham, an editor at World Book Encyclopedia in Chicago, after he suddenly became deaf. His loss left him depressed until he entered a support group to deal with the problem.

      ...

      In 1987, Bill Graham received a book titled Who's Who in Science, and thumbed through its pages finding people who he thought to be deaf, and then contacted them. Graham's predictions were mostly right, and he met with the people to discuss plans for an adult deafness group.

      ALDA's first chapter opened in Chicago in 1987 with the help of audiologists, psychiatrists and other professionals who could work well with the deaf.

      Today, there are chapters of ALDA in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France Australia, and now, Pasco County.

    3. Zaslow, Jeffrey (1991-11-07). "Swallowed by silence, they work to adjust". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.

      The article notes:

      On the day I visited, Mike, Karen and another friend, Stanley Gadsden, 32, were making plans to attend the third annual ALDA International Conference, which began Wednesday and continues through Sunday at the Westin Hotel in Chicago.

      ALDA is a four-year-old group with 1,200 members, all of whom became deaf after childhood. Though the late-deafened make up 75 percent of the 1.8 million deaf population, they are often the most isolated. People who were born deaf view them as part of the hearing world. And people who hear view them as deaf.

      ...

      I. King Jordan, president of Gallaudet, the university for deaf students, lost his hearing in a motorcycle accident at age 21. He's giving the keynote address at this year's ALDA conference. In a speech to ALDA in 1989, he talked of how the hearing world interacts with the late-deafened: "The belief is out there that, if we deaf people would simply try a little bit harder, if we would really concentrate, then we would be able to understand. If we really worked at it, we could hear again."

    4. Leigh, Irene (2009). A Lens on Deaf Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 46–47. ISBN  0195320662. Retrieved 2015-09-14.

      The book notes on pages 46–47:

      Those who acknowledge that they have moved to a different phase and need to get on with life may be amenable to seeking out contact with other late-deafened persons through venues such as the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc. (ALDA) ( http://www.alda.org, 2008) in their search for a sense of fellowship. At ALDA meetings, attention to diverse communication needs, including signed English, spoken language with speeechreading and assistive listening devices, note writing, and CART [Communication Access Real Time Translation] ( http://www.alda.org, 2008), draws these late-deafened individuals together. Conclusions from data obtained from 97 late-deafened participants in 12 focus groups confirm that while hearing community affiliations remain strong, meetings with ALDA members are valued (Goulder, 1997).

    5. Stenross, Barbara (2010). Missed Connections. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. p. 126. ISBN  1439903905. Retrieved 2015-09-14.

      The book notes on page 126 in its "Resources" section:

      ALDA

      The Association of Late Deafened Adults (ALDA) is a self-help organization for people who have lost their hearing after the development of speech. The organization was founded in Chicago in 1987.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Association of Late-Deafened Adults to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 03:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There's sufficient here for notability of this national organization. This is one of the few recent times I've agreed with Cunard in these discussions, at least about the conclusion, though I think some of his sources are mere mentions. Books about a condition such as this and patient websites tend to include all posssibly relevant organizations, and I consider them mere listings. The 1st ref. given by StarryGrandma, however, is substantial enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ DGG: above you !voted to delete, here you're saying keep. I assume you changed your mind and intended to strike your earlier comment? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
struck. As I said, Cunard and SG convinced me. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Spencer Mallinson

Spencer Mallinson (  | 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 musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The article is written in the first person, cites a single brief namecheck in a book, and rests his notability on having very briefly been in a notable band — however, NMUSIC permits a musician whose notability is band-dependent to have a separate standalone article only if they can be reliably sourced as having independent notability for something independent of the band (such as solo albums). And looking at the band's article, his membership was extremely brief at best — the founding member that Mallinson claims to have replaced was actually replaced within two weeks by a permanent new member who wasn't Mallinson, so even if Mallinson's claim is true he was in the band for a grand total of 10-14 days at most. And all of this occurred before the band had even recorded its first album, meaning they weren't even notable yet. NMUSIC normally recommends a redirect to the band, but I don't think that's appropriate in this case, as his membership in the band isn't even hinted at in the band's article. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. While AFD is not cleanup, it seems like the votes are for deleting this particular article. Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

List of songs recorded by D12

List of songs recorded by D12 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A trivial list. Redundant to D12 discography. Koala15 ( talk) 15:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per rationale given by another editor at the last nomination, "The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles" and my comment at the Snoop Dogg nomination by the same editor which reads, "The nominator has given his opinion why the whole of the "List of songs recorded by Foo" may be considered for deletion but has failed to explain why the Snoop Dogg list should be singled out. If the nominator thinks that the category should be deleted he should nominate accordingly, singling out certain artists according to personal taste does not benefit Wikipedia." -- Richhoncho ( talk) 18:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Here's some figures.
Ariana Grande discography mentions 29 of the entries in the article.
Meaning that 15 songs from the "List of songs" article are not covered in the discography.
Meaning that 64 songs from the "List of songs" article are not covered in the discography.
If one of the two articles were to be AfD'd, it would surely be the Ariana Grande list, no? Do you still stand by your claim that this article is redundant to the discography? Strong keep'. Azealia911 talk 19:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Richhoncho I'm not sure if the genre of the artists brought to AfD has anything to do with it, but they all seem to be very basic, messy, unsourced lists. I sense that having them deleted is an easy cleanup, a way of sweeping them under the rug and getting them out of the way without actually working on them if you get what I mean. Azealia911 talk 11:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Azealia911. I am not sure I would call any of the articles basic or messy, but I concur they are unreferenced, but that's not grounds for deletion either. If the nominator wishes to point out I have made an error in my accusation I would apologise and retract my "rapper" comment, although to be fair one of the nominations was for a "hiphop artist". -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Koala15:, could you please give an indication as to weather you wish to proceed with this AfD? If you withdraw, it can speedily be closed as nobody else has !voted delete. Just suggesting it as opposed to letting this drag on until it's closed in a few days. That is, unless you still think the article should be deleted. Thanks, Azealia911 talk 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Kraxler I repeat what I said before, are lists like this one or this one cruft? Considering they also have corresponding discography articles? Azealia911 talk 01:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
If you ask me whether WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, I'll answer yes. But, your two examples have a reference appended to each song, and the unlinked entries do not grossly outnumber the blue-linked songs. Kraxler ( talk) 01:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah, the ever over-used otherstuffexists, Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's law. An articles current state should not be viable reasoning for deletion, but its potential. Is the article a dire mess? Completely. Does it have the potential to be a complete, referenced list? Yes. Azealia911 talk 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Yelawolf for what happens to unsourced FANCRUFT/LISTCRUFT. Kraxler ( talk) 02:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Then why should that Afd take precedence over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Tupac Shakur, which resulted in keep? Or the more recent BIG K.R.I.T keep decision? It's all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and quite irrelevant to the discussion here. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 15:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, it's all OTHERSTUFF, I just showed that "keep" is as much a possible outcome of this AfD as "delete". It's to be decided on the merits of this subject, and not any other. Kraxler ( talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

If by "what happens", you mean the opinion of you and two other editors at a relatively quiet AfD, then yes ok, there's one example of what happened. But until you can clearly show me that poor referencing is a cause for deletion, and not just a way of sweeping clutter under the rug as opposed to working on said article, I'm not buying it. As of the current listed examples of reasons for deletion, I'm not seeing any that this list applies to. Take note of number 6 too, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" not "Articles that are currently not attributed to reliable sources". If anything, an easy referencing method would be the respective albums's listed in the articles' liner notes or AllMusic credits. As for you calling fancruft, preposterous. Someone making a comprehensive "List of songs" article for an artist is most definitely not cruft. I just sourced 35+ entries in the list. Will resume when I wake up. Azealia911 talk 02:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

LISTCRUFT applies when the non-notable stuff by far exceeds the notable part. It's 64 nn to 25 n, by your count. This list is just a pretext to squeeze more info on 64 non-notable songs into Wikipedia. Kraxler ( talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrew Hastie (politician)

Andrew Hastie (politician) (  | 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 of this article fails WP:ONEEVENT as he is known only for his current political candidacy in an upcoming Australian federal by-election, with all references on him having appeared since this was announced and being focused on this fact. The usual convention is that Australian federal political candidates are not independently notable until they are elected, with this being the consensus of a discussion of this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Andrew Hastie (politician). While Mr Hastie's Army career was distinguished, it is not a source of independent notability as 1) his identity was legally protected as he was a member of the secretive Special Air Service Regiment so he received no coverage whatsoever for it until he announced his candidacy 2) the stories about his military service have been in the context of his political candidacy (he's running strongly on his military record) and 3) He did not hold a senior rank (he was a mid-ranked officer until he resigned to contest the election). Nick-D ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Nick-D ( talk) 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nick-D ( talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Full disclosure, I was the editor who approved this article through the AfC process. Nick-D and I have had a cordial back and forth regarding this article, which he felt should be a redirect, and I disagree with. I thought that if he felt strongly that a created article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, he should bring it to the AfD process, which he has graciously done. I understand his viewpoint, but in my opinion, this is a case that regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, this fledgling politician clearly passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It is rather tedious that it has had to come to this, since very possibly this whole affair will be rendered moot in two weeks' time. In the meantime, however, Hastie has no claim of passing GNG. He is known only and entirely for his candidacy for Canning; there is, to my knowledge, no coverage whatsoever of him in any other context, thus he fails ONEEVENT as Nick-D says. If he is successful - which he very well might be - then obviously he passes WP:POLITICIAN, but in the meantime he is not notable and the article is premature. We also want to discourage this kind of premature creation and actually had a kind of incubator for these a few years ago, which has fallen into abeyance. If someone wanted to host this in userspace until the by-election that would be a satisfactory solution as well - in fact, given that the article in its current state is quite decent, I would be happy to do so myself. Frickeg ( talk) 04:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just the national television coverage alone is enough to satisfy WP:N. Perhaps if this was part of a general election collection of candidates we would not have received the national coverage of the person. But that's not the case here. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. If he does not win the by-election, he will be just another failed candidate with a flash of fame due to that one event. Redirect to the by-election and give each candidate a neutral paragraph or two if needed. I agree it's a nice article, but I'm sure someone could write an article about each of us if they cared to. -- Scott Davis Talk 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Nick. Definite 1E for me. If elected, obviously a different matter. Wait until then. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It should have been speedied or redirected, Onel5969 had no business forcing this time-sensitive situation through AfD, and I would suggest a WP:SNOW close as soon as possible. Hastie has absolutely no claim to notability besides his political candidacy: if he wins, he will be unquestionably notable, if he loses, he is unquestionably not notable, and the by-election is far too closely contested for an article to be created in advance and only serves as campaign propaganda. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 05:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - regretfully as this article seems to be in good shape and is the work of a new editor. Regardless, I agree with the nominator's 1E rationale. The claim that Hastie has received ongoing nationwide media coverage is not really accurate as he only seems to have received coverage in the lead up to the election (i.e. his candidacy) which I don't think fits the definition of "ongoing". Of cse though this may change and in the future there may be more coverage (of either his political or military career, or both). I wonder if this might be USERFIED? Anotherclown ( talk) 07:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Postpone - The by-election will be held in 2 weeks time, and this AFD will run for 1 week. If he is elected (and he is the big favourite to win it, given he needs a 10% swing to lose it), the article will then be undeleted/recreated only 1 week after it's deleted. What a waste of time. If he loses, then I think that it should be selectively merged/redirected to Canning by-election, 2015. The-Pope ( talk) 08:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That would effectively create a special exemption from WP:NPOL, by which all candidates in current elections would suddenly become entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign advertising platform for the duration of the campaign, and then only after the results were finalized could we even begin to entertain deletion of any of them. And that wouldn't just apply to by-elections either; it would apply equally to all of the thousands of candidates in a full-on general election, too. No matter how ridiculous it may seem to delete the article and then possibly have to restore it again in a week or two, creating a special waiver from our inclusion rules just because the election's not very far off would be a logistical nightmare that would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a public relations database. There's always the option of sandboxing it, too. Bearcat ( talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per the nominator and other delete voters, and hopefully a WP:SNOW close. The concerns raised by The-Pope could be fixed by moving the article into userspace or WP:Draftspace. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Suspending our normal inclusion standards for politicians, just because the by-election's only a couple of weeks away and we might have to recreate the article again, is a can of worms that no sane editor wants to open — it would require us to accept every article about every candidate in any current election at any level of government in every country in the entire world, and would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a repository of campaign brochures. And even if he is favoured to win, per WP:CRYSTAL we're not in the business of publishing electoral predictions. Simply put, we have to stick with the rules — granting a temporary special exemption to candidates in current elections, just because we might have to recreate them again (oh, the horror) if the candidate wins, would inherently vitiate the very reason that our inclusion standards for politicians even exist in the first place. Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation if he wins; sandboxing in draft or userspace also acceptable. Bearcat ( talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Why would the result from a single AFD make a binding precedent that overrules NPOL? If I referred to this article in the next political candidate's AFD, I'd get OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fired at me. This isn't any old minor candidate. It's a by-election, so only one seat is being voted for, and the media focus is much higher than a normal state or national campaign (as the result is seen as a pointer to the status of the Prime Minister's standing). He isn't representing any old party, it's one of the two major political parties in the country and the incumbent party for this seat, so the prediction of victory is very high, it's currently paying about $1.22 (or 5/1 on) at the online bookies. This isn't a US style >2-year campaign, it's a 33 day campaign that's seen the Prime Minister appear numerous times alongside this candidate. If there was a case for a IAR on the standard notability guidelines (not rules) for political candidates, this is it. If it is deleted, will you salt it for that week to stop other well meaning people, political staffers or editors who want it to be a "PR database" from recreating it in the meantime? (and a disclaimer, in case anyone thinks I'm COI or connected to Hastie - my politics are almost completely opposite to his. So no, I don't know or support him in any way). The-Pope ( talk) 14:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete according to regular practice. It would have been better to have been left as a redirect so that it could be easily recreated.-- Grahame ( talk) 02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The claim by Nick-D that he is only known for his recent candidature ignores role as a member of SASR generally, and the fact he is linked to the incident regarding the severed hands. This case is only the second alleged war crimes investigation in Australia over the last 10 years, and Hastie is the only figure identified in public. For these reasons in my opinion he satisfies WP:GNG.-- Klobfour ( talk) 07:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
He was only identified after, and because, of his political candidacy. According to the media reports, he played no direct role in the incident and was cleared. I'm not sure what you mean by "ignores role as a member of SASR generally" - given that the identities of SAS personnel are legally protected, no notability whatsoever is attached to this: quite the opposite in fact. Moreover, the SAS Regiment has 500+ members at any given point in time, including what must be around 30 officers, so there's no intrinsic notability from being a former member of the unit. Nick-D ( talk) 07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Firstly, as you did with your original entry arguing for AfD and you’ve done again here, you have conflated the cause of his identification (political candidacy) with the cause of his notoriety (SAS soldier involved in high profile incidents and political candidacy) in an attempt to argue for deletion in accordance with WP:ONEEVENT. This is a false argument as they are two distinct elements; however, there is of course a relationship between the two. His notoriety extends from his career as a SAS officer AND his political candidacy. Perhaps you can argue that WP:POLITICIAN shows that listing him prior to election fails to satisfy this rule, but it relies on him having no notoriety other than candidacy, which is clearly not the case. Secondly, as Graeme said it’s not just an election, it’s a by-election, and it’s a by-election which has attracted more attention than any other in perhaps the last 20 years (maybe since Ros Kelly in 1995?). It’s in the news every night, and Hastie appears in the newspapers every morning, sometimes more than once. The arguments that if he loses he’ll just be another failed candidate are a weak generalisation, as at the very least we know from the alleged war crimes investigation that there’s more to come. Thirdly, your argument regarding “no notability whatsoever” due to the legally protected status of SAS personnel is a fallacy. It’s the equivalent of saying an event is unimportant because no-one saw or reported it. Maybe that tree never fell in the forest? I’m unsure what the strength of the SAS Regiment officers and men is but seeing as it’s “legally protected” the statistics you’ve used must be a stab in the dark at best, and afford no relevance to the discussion. Finally, there appears to be very limited risk of this amounting to a partisan article seeing as there is no mention of policy or the usual politicking politicians get up to, and the bulk of the article is devoted to his military service. I stand by my comments regarding satisfaction of WP:GNG. He’s attracted numerous front page stories on BOTH his candidacy and his military career, and I’m certain the media coverage over the next two weeks will further show that this is the case. I’m unsure why but my guess from your entry editorialising his private life and your removal of the references to the “controversial” article in ‘‘The Age’’ (despite it being slammed by politicians and commentators of all persuasions) is that you must really dislike this guy for some reason, hence your attempt to steamroll over all who disagree with you. Prove me wrong with a reasoned argument. Klobfour ( talk) 12:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn/speedy-close, editorial decision to REDIRECT to List of schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. As with all non-admin closures, this is without prejudice. ( non-admin closure)/nominator-closure. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

St. Gregory Barbarigo School

St. Gregory Barbarigo School (  | 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 school. No indication it passes WP:NSCHOOL, WP:CORP, or WP:GNG. Most "delete" arguments raised in 2006 AFD still apply. Many "keep" arguments from 2006 have been superceded by changes in Wiki-practice as seen in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That AFD closed as "no consensus". Note: Potential redirect target to Garnerville, New York would be potentially confusing to readers as the page doens't have an "education" section. Having said that, I am okay with either delete or redirect. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • As nominator I have no objection to redirecting the page to any suitable target including this one. A target that mentions the school by name or that at least mentions elementary schools in that geographic area or which could have a mention easily added (i.e. without having to add a bunch of other stuff for context) would likely be more suitable than one that doesn't mention it or which would need a large or awkward edit to mention it. Had there not been any past deletion- or redirect-attempts I would've simply redirect it to somewhere or WP:PRODed it. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 14:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 15:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Patchblocks

Patchblocks (  | 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 newly minted WP:PROMOTIONAL article consists of 8 largely non-RS references that include YouTube, Kickstarter, Facebook, the company's own website, etc., plus a handful (3) of drive-by product reviews of specific items manufactured by the company (not actual information on the company itself). LavaBaron ( talk) 03:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I created this article and I am not sure why LavaBaron insists that it is promotional material. I have no relation to this company, and I do not own these products, nor am I interested in advancing their reputation. I will happily rewrite any material that seems too much like an ad. Primary sources (the YouTube interview, the Kickstarter, the Facebook page) are not unreliable sources by any means. Also, the company's website is not actually cited in the article, and the other 5 references are to secondary sources. Create Digital Music, AskAudio and Fact have regular staff subject to editorial oversight. I can't find as much detailed information about Earmilk, though it appears to have a managing staff. If the concern is that the page covers the product more than the company, couldn't a move/restructuring be more effective? I'd also like to say that I feel like this AfD may have been started hastily and in bad faith after I asked LavaBaron to explain their tags on the article on the talk page. Boomur [ ] 03:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If you're citing a source that you don't know much about but "appears to have an editorial staff" [sic] that's a good clue it's non-RS. As for not explaining my tags to you, it's not my responsibility to explain why Facebook and YouTube are non-RS to a seasoned editor such as yourself. It would be different if you were new here. But asking me to spend time typing out the patently obvious is a nuisance request. If you truly don't know at this point in your WP career, you may want to spend some time observing before continuing editing. LavaBaron ( talk) 03:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please see WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources are not necessarily unreliable. The tags you left on the article were mainly related to lack of references, original research, and puffery; I was seeking examples of those things so that they could be corrected, because from my perspective they were not present in the article (which doesn't mean they're not present). Boomur [ ] 03:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
They are in this case. LavaBaron ( talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as they are not notable. I went through the article and chopped it down to size, and removed the Facebook and Youtube "refs". Setting aside who created the article or why, it seems it is now standard practice for any small Maker-type company that relies on the Internet for sales to have a Wikipedia page like this to promote their product and to tell the world that they are alive. In this case I would say it is WP:TOOSOON. Companies like littleBits or Adafruit are notable for having generated enormous independent third-party press about their products. Look at the refs in Ayah Bdeir's article: those are notable. The refs in this article are very weak mentions in industry publications and do not denote significant notability. New Media Theorist ( talk) 17:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeah, as more companies are learning about Google Knowledge Graph, there's been a race to claim real estate. We seem to be seeing a lot of small companies desperately lining up to push-through articles about themselves. I've been AfD'ing like a madman lately. LavaBaron ( talk) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Yes Boomur, I understood that from when you said as much in your first comment. If you read my comment two up from this, and LavaBaron's directly above, we do not claim you are associated with the company. We were just talking generally about the appropriateness/notability factor of very small companies having Wikipedia pages. That's the crux of the notability issue here: very small company with minor industry press. Does it need a page, is it notable enough to warrant one? I say WP:TOOSOON. And yes, I know you disagree. Hoping to hear what others have to say. New Media Theorist ( talk) 02:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Just calm down, no one is accusing you of anything. The article will be deleted fairly shortly and then we can all go back to routine. LavaBaron ( talk) 03:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, WP:SOFTDELETE-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Anbukkodi Makkal

Anbukkodi Makkal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches including the simplest found absolutely nothing at all so, given it's an Indian subject, I'm sure if sources are simply not easily accessible. However, it was started in June 2005 by an Indian IP and has not been significantly edited since so that concerns me. I'd like to invite fellow hoax hunter Calamondin12 for comment. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89( T· E· C) 03:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Not a hoax. Appears to be a rarely-used spelling; more common is Anbu Kodi Makkal. I've found references to "anbukkodi" as a symbol used by devotees of Ayya Vaikundar, such as page 47 of this document: "A global structure called “samattuva sangham” was created with a saffron flag with a white jwala (‘anbukkodi’) in the middle." It's unclear how much the term is actually used, however, so ideally an expert on religion in India may be able to offer some advice on whether to keep the article (which has very little real content) or to redirect to Ayyavazhi. Calamondin12 ( talk) 12:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 11:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Busted Halo

Busted Halo (  | 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 google test, and has had the {{ notability}} tag on it since 2011. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 16:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Tiffany Clark (volleyball)

Tiffany Clark (volleyball) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable underage athlete. Fails WP:NHSPHSATH. On WP:VBALL, the project seems to indicate that youth amateur players are not notable. This would change, of course, if there were multiple third party sources to state notability. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are on the same team; and they all fall under the same notability status:

Morgan Hentz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sydney Hilley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khalia Lanier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Madison Lilley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regan Pittman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kathryn Plummer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ronika Stone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexis Sun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Undead Never Die ( talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 23:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: WP:BEFORE should have prevented this irresponsible nomination. Plenty of sources to satisfy GNG - including these two from the Chicago Tribune: [51] [52] Similar minimal effort turns up third-party news stories for the other players. Recommend this be speedily closed if not withdrawn by nominator. The Dissident Aggressor 21:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This has nothing to do with WP:BEFORE. The sources you listed, I had also found. I cannot access them without paying for them and I will not do that. It might have been the way they were linked, but I think I have accessed them successfully now. So to comment on the sources. The one source does talk about Clark, I understand that. However, that does not equal significant third party coverage. The second source is a list of players and a small piece on them, something you would generally find for an underage athlete in a local paper. See other linked discussions in regards to this for reference. As per WP:NHSPHSATH, "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." None of these individuals satisfy this requirement. It goes on to say "The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.", which hammers on the two sources linked above. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 21:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
So you found sources satisfying WP:GNG and nominated them anyway. We're done. The Dissident Aggressor 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Your sources do not meet WP:GNG. They are written for local sports sections in local papers. That fails notability. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 05:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 01:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 17:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Osama Ali

Osama Ali (  | 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 athlete. Quis separabit? 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook