WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2015 NOVEMBER 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 November	17 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - "This article cites no sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, WP:BEFORE should always be followed before nomination!, No objections to renomination at any time ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

WEC 3

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

This article cites no sources. Kevlar ( talk) 22:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. No sources and not the slightest indication of importance, either. -- Calton | Talk 16:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - "This article cites no sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, WP:BEFORE should always be followed before nomination!, No objections to renomination at any time ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

WEC 10

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

This article cites no sources. Kevlar ( talk) 22:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - "This article cites no sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, WP:BEFORE should always be followed before nomination!, No objections to renomination at any time ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Strikeforce: Young Guns II

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

This article cites no sources. Kevlar ( talk) 22:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - "This article cites no sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, WP:BEFORE should always be followed before nomination!, No objections to renomination at any time ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Pride 21

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

This article cites no sources. Kevlar ( talk) 22:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - "This article cites no sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, WP:BEFORE should always be followed before nomination!, No objections to renomination at any time ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Jungle Fight 1

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

This article cites no sources. Kevlar ( talk) 22:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - "This article cites no sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, WP:BEFORE should always be followed before nomination!, No objections to renomination at any time ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

UFC 28

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

This article cites no sources Kevlar ( talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The sources demanded have been added, and the event and its article are indisputably notable, marking the start of a new era under which UFC events were governed by a state sanctioning body. Even without the sources, the notability standard is clearly met; With them, this is a no-brainer for retention. Alansohn ( talk) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Notability in Wikipedia revolves around sources - without sources you can't claim notability. At least some have been added. Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Being unsourced is not a reason for deletion. The nom should read WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep The subject stands as an internationally known and widely referenced event. Not sure why it would be considered for deletion. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Bet You Can't Do It Like Me

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

Non-notable song by a non-notable artist. A credible assertion of notability is offered: this song debuted at #44 on the Billboard US Hot R&B/Hip-hop chart. Except there is no evidence that this claim is true. The link fails, and a search of the Billboard site results in no hits for either the title or the artist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:NSONG, currently #61 on the Billboard US Hot 100. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn -- my earlier searches to verify its chart position failed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Carsonism

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

Coatrack based on what appears to be a neologism. Many sources use the term "Carsonism", but I can't find a pattern of reliable sources using it with this meaning. Also I can't see any evidence that the listed examples have been labelled as "Carsonisms". In short, this article appears to be premature at best. Looie496 ( talk) 13:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, no reliable source coverage of this term that I could find that has to do with Ben Carson, as opposed to the very notable Bushism, which has been discussed in many such sources. Everymorning (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete If the article creator wants to keep track of stupid things said by Ben Carson they should start a blog. I find no evidence of the label 'Carsonism' is used in RS. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nom. Wiktionary defines "Carsonism" as a historic term for "political support for Edward Carson, Baron Carson (1854–1935), leader of the Irish Unionist Alliance and Ulster Unionist Party between 1910 and 1921." -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, there is no place for such pages. Ireneshih ( talk) 16:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Funny stuff, but better to be in the Carson article, if anywhere. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:COATRACK and per the research by Notecardforfree which shows that the term, at this time, is connected to another person. MarnetteD| Talk 23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. This is a blog post not an encyclopedia article. Capitalismojo ( talk) 14:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Soapboxing and non-notable coatracking to further some sort of political agenda. Softlavender ( talk) 11:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
It's interesting that the article links to Bushism. However, that article has been around for 11 years and seems a lot better sourced. And as I recall, there were even calendars about Bushisms. I don't expect we'll be seeing any calendars about Carson. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Graham ( talk) 05:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

WorldLink Forums

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

Non-notable website: I can’t find any reliable sources. Speedily deleted under this title and also under Worldlink forums. The present incarnation should also have been speedily deleted, but someone removed the tag. — teb728 t c 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites) and I see no sources to salvage it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 01:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete - article about an obviously non-notable website. Aside: as noted above, the speedy deletion tag was removed; the editor who did that said to me: "after looking at their site (helping children build websites) I thought they deserve a chance" ( [1]) and whilst I have some sympathy, that does not seem to be a good enough reason to ignore all rules. In any case, the proposal is to delete Wikipedia's article about the website, not the website itself - that will continue to "help children build websites" whether or not the Wikipedia article exists. RichardOSmith ( talk) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree with you—except for your reference to IAR: The removal of the speedy tag (although mistaken IMHO) was done in accord with normal rules. — teb728 t c 06:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. Speedy shouldn't have been removed. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 08:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete: Not notable, and leaving this page in existence unhelpfully gives the children the mistaken idea that this is appropriate content for the encyclopedia. Pam D 15:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 01:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Les Studios Tex

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

Fails the notability guidelines.-- Proud User ( talk) 10:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

'Delete - Simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nothing beyond few mentions in passing, fails WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 01:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Endpoint Modeling

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

Non-notable company. Does not pass WP:GNG Zpeopleheart ( talk) 20:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, fails WP:NCOMPANY and I see no sources besides press releases. Not to be confused with potentially notable term related to statistics which I do see mentioned in books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 01:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - No better notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fairly obvious COI. Deb ( talk) 12:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - This article purports to be about a technology but it appears that only Observable Networks uses this term. There appears to be only one independent source (mHealthNews). Sbwoodside ( talk) 20:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Essentially an advertisement, on a subject which is a propriety term used by one business for its non-notable product. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - nothing in searches to support notability. JamesBWatson's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Menchi under criteria G7 and R3. A new page, Luxembourgian Jew, has been redirected to History of the Jews in Luxembourg. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Luxemborgian Jew

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

I meant to make a redirect page for Luxembourgian Jew—not sure "Luxemborgian" [sic], without the "u", is a common enough misspelling to justify a redirect. I say this page goes. -- (Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 19:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete hard to imagine anyone using this exact phrase with the alternative spelling. JMWt ( talk) 21:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The Malan Show

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

An article on a non-notable 2008 series, apparently created by Breton's publicist, editing as User:Jasonbenz2 (see here and here for two examples of press releases from Jason Benz on behalf of his client.) At any rate, while WP:TVSERIES advises us that a nationally cablecast series is "likely to be notable," it is not a carte blanche. This short-lived series received no independent news coverage whatsoever, far as I can tell and is simply not notable. This is actually part of a walled garden of Malan Breton-related spam articles now at Afd. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect to Malan Breton - this seems a logical course of action. Mabalu ( talk) 22:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
FYI, article creator User:Jasonbenz2 has just been blocked indefinitely for using "Using Wikipedia for promotion, and deception." Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
There may well be nothing to merge to. Malan Breton has just been protected against further sockpuppet edits by Jasonbenz2 and has been retagged for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. The entire WP:Walled garden may be coming down. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

No, another editor has removed the speedy tag and done clean up. A merge is indeed possible. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete ~ merge if there's anything worth saving, but as i looked at it it seems pretty much void of any useful content. cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - searches failed to show any in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

David Mascio

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

Speedied this on creation; tag removed that impovements establishing notability were to come. I see nothing, hence AfD as non-notable. Not being an "entepreneur" might be notable.... TheLongTone ( talk) 18:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 03:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 03:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 03:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as all searches easily found nothing else. Notifying DGG who likes to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not yet a professional academic. "Adjunct professor" is meaningless for notability. He's a graduate student, a PhD candidate A7 might be suitable. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and clearly does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Human Rights Defence

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

Fails WP:ORG. A search for "Human Rights Defence", with the operator -"Global Human Rights Defence" to remove the similarly-named organisation, produces no relevant results. ninety: one 18:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete other than their website and this page, I cannot find anything JMWt ( talk) 18:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Looks like it's too soon for an article yet. I don't even see any press releases floating around, and that's pretty rare. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 08:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - nothing in searches to show that this particular organization meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Project No. 1: A Solar-Powered VW Bus

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

No independent sources; no real evidence of notability. — Swpb^talk 18:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I am sad because I am a T2 enthusiast, but this is not notable, nor even very novel. Electric T2 conversions have existed since the 1970s. Suggest maybe the authors should move their project page to appropedia where live student projects of this kind are supported and encouraged. JMWt ( talk) 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I endorse that fantastic suggestion! This sort of project surely has a place on the web, just not in an encyclopedia. — Swpb^talk 18:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello Kids

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

In the words of Frank Zappa, strictly commercial. We don't cover preschools without a large showing of widespread coverage. As that almost always results from scandal, perhaps the creator of this Article May want to reasses their desire to have one. John from Idegon ( talk) 17:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Reads like a brochure, and fails WP:GNG (possibly WP:NOTADVERTISING as well without copyediting, provided it's not deleted). FrameDrag ( talk) 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY, not seeing any better sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 01:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Pure promotion. We generally delete such schoos or school groups. In fact it could be speedied at G11. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G3) by Sphilbrick ( non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 08:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Admiral Jachimov

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

WP:NOR MarkYabloko 17:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Article qualifies for speedy deletion. AfD template was placed in error (and reverted immediately), however it was bot re-reverted and the article ended up here. MarkYabloko 18:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. May be dealing with an editor operating in bad faith. The editor's other creation Ernst Dudeheim (now a redirect) was a copy-paste WP:CFORK of the same person Henry Dudeney. -- Green C 18:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 05:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 05:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Don't find any refs to support notability. Lakun.patra ( talk) 05:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - Searches in Russian Wikipedia and Yandex (Russian search engine) have yielded nothing on the subject of the article. MarkYabloko 09:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - nothing in English or Russian online about an admiral whom the first draft of the article claimed was covered in glory during the reign of Peter the Great. Probable hoax, especially in light of creator's other contribution. Norvoid ( talk) 11:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Tagged as G3 as searches clearly found nothing and this is therefore obvious vandalism. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Nirwanchak

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

Read carefully. I don't know where to report this. This page is being used for self-promotion in a stealth way. This page was created by a user Safety14. In this page he has uploaded a selfie of himself.. This page will never have any page watchers. If i remove the picture from this page, he might undo again and I don't want to watch this page or this user. Better delete this image and warn the user. I was checking the edits of Guddusaurabh and came to this page. He is following the edits of Safety14.

Safety14 is using Wikipedia articles to use it as family album. In this page he has uploaded a picture of his Father as picture of the town. in category page, he has uploaded a picture of his family member. Galaxy Kid ( talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The main problem is that, he is inserting his family pictures in articles related to villages and towns. Someone should block him from uploading pictures. Galaxy Kid ( talk) 17:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Villages are notable, but I cannot find any sources confirming this one's name, so it may be a hoax (if anyone can prove otherwise, ping me). Uploading family pictures to Commons may be ok, see commons:Commons:SCOPE, they have educational value showing everyday life in India. Wikipedia should not be used as one's album, of course, but this is not a discussion to be had here; if he is spamming images in various articles, take it to WP:ANI. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 01:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete i I tagged it as speedy as it is just a copy paste of Nadwan, Patna but it was declined citing ongoing AFD discussion pending. Lakun.patra ( talk) 05:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 05:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Both users have been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Safety14. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:GNG. Not sure this place even exists. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete similarly unconvinced that this place exists (if anyone finds proof to the contrary I would change my view) _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Dethstarla

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. No actual coverage here, just directory listings and self-published material. ubiquity ( talk) 16:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. "Up-and-coming". Hasn't charted or anything. — Swpb^talk 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication that she comes close to meeting WP:MUSICBIO yet. Norvoid ( talk) 18:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Sounds like a cool person, but we can't keep articles based on that. All the Google hits I found were social media. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 08:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Jeff Brown (entrepreneur and investor)

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

After cleaning up unsourced material, what is left is mainly mentions in primary sources and press releases. The subject fails WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Founding a non-notable enterprise and being mentioned in local media a few times does not cover WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete His accolades and coverage does not rise about local coverage. I am not sure if a journalism school entrepeneur in residence is on the level of a professorship, but those alone do not grant notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - minor local businessperson of insufficient notability for a global encyclopedia. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Spectacularly fails WP:BIO. ukexpat ( talk) 14:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete There's nothing in the sources that is not primary and/or from local publications. Tangledupinbleu chs ( talk) 02:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as my searches at News, Books, Highbeam and browsers found some links but certainly nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sultana Foundation

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

not WP:NOTABLE, looks like spam, but not quite enough for WP:CSD IMO. ⁓ Hello 71 15:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not seeing any sources that would help this pass WP:NORG (in-depth, etc.). Few mentions in passing, that's all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Totally promotional article without evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-notable organisation, article is purely for promotional use. Richard Harvey ( talk)
Delete - nothing to show notability in any of the searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 12:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Buying Sex is Not a Sport

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

Fails the notability guidelines given in WP:EVENT. Looks like a one-off event with no lasting impact and no coverage outside its immediate geographical area. Kelly ^hi! 14:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete this was barely a thing in Vancouver, part of a huge effort to promote Teng on Wikipedia. Legacypac ( talk) 06:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per the above BMK ( talk) 15:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Part of a walled garden, not notable. Trivial mentions are inflated to become of encyclopedic importance, non-neutral language, abuse of Wikipedia for slacktivism, etc. Drmies ( talk) 04:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep was also a thing in Germany (2006) and to a lesser extent Ireland (2006). Also in Glasgow. Plenty of coverage in books. Meets GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC). reply
Delete. Random insignificant activist campaign, poor coverage in sources. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Adequate coverage, international activities, looks like references to Teng are gone now. Let's now throw out the baby with the bathwater. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually, Tara Teng is still in the article. Softlavender ( talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete/merge. The article is written with a focus on the Canadian edition; which is not a problem in itself, but the sources are: they are regional, and mixed with mentions in passing. I looked at Google Books and Scholar, and the campaign is not a subject of any in-depth coverage. I'd merge it to anti-prostitution activism, but there is no such article. At best, some content could be merged to Prostitution or Prostitution in Canada. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 10:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Maa Gold

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

Unsourced article. Another one of the many thousands of TV stations around the world. Unless notability is asserted, we can't have a list of everyone of them. Article was PRODded and an IP user removed the prod tag without addressing the issue, so here we are. Seeking guidance from the community. Are all tv stations worldwide notable by default? Should we have an entry for each one of the thousands of them around the world? Or should each one assert notability? So far this one lacks sources other than itself. Alexf^(talk) 15:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. TV stations are NOT notable by default, they still need to pass WP:NCOMPANY (see also Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 05:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as nom. I agree. They should assert notability individually. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches do not show that this passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I looked for sources, and did not find enough coverage to let this clear GNG. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Nader Ezzeddine

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF. There are no references to this person in basic searches other than a staff page and trivial mentions. He has published some papers but their levels of citation seem unremarkable. The article itself is more of a resume than a biography. Jbh ^Talk 14:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete My searches are not turning up anything that would meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. I was concerned that the first-person style indicated a copyvio, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or a specific guideline such as WP:ACADEMIC. -- Kinu ^t/_c 16:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete for now unfortunately as although it seemed News, Books, browser and Scholar found some links, there's nothing to suggest better yet. Notifying tagger Dthomsen8. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Malan Breton A Journey to Taiwan

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

Does not appear to pass film notability. The sources are mainly PR releases, advertorials, or blogs. Although the film won an award, I see no article to show that the New York International Film Festival is notable or that its awards are significant enough to confer notability. Apparently the film has been submitted for consideration for an Academy Award - but is simply being "considered" good enough? Also it needs to be noted that the creator has the same name as Malan Breton's PR - so there is a massive conflict of interest. If it does get nominated for an Oscar, all good, but at the moment it seems a bit early for such an article, much less one that is clearly created by the PR team. Mabalu ( talk) 13:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Good catch. Yes, it's from a SPA who seems to be here to create Malan Breton-related content. A Google search for "Malan Breton" + film yields a few minor mentions, from what I can see. Oh, and the film isn't being "considered for Academy Award nomination" in the short doc category, so that's actually misleading readers. In fact that's frankly a ludicrous idea for an apparently unremarkable work like this, which appears to be more a self-promotional video rather than a serious work of non-fiction film. I won't remove it, though, so others can see the article in its original state. Not seeing any reason not to delete. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The claim has now been hastily removed by Breton's PR.... Mabalu ( talk) 16:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

LOL. Though it still resides, sort of, in the lead. Hey, Jason, what are we paying you for? Let's go! ;-) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Breton's PR? Sir I along with millions of other have been following Malan Breton's career since he appeared on Project runway. I am not his PR, and would really appreciate that you stop with the bullying. It is not funny! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbenz2 ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Not millions. Billions. But seriously, I apologize Jason. It was a joke. Still, the article deserves deletion and your Oscars claim was a bit much. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

we can only go by what is released in the press. But one of his other fans was there when NYC International Film Festival gave him the award and announced the oscar submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbenz2 ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

If you are not his PR, then explain why your name appears on this PR release, along with Jason Benz's Malan Breton email address. Jason Benz's name and malanbreto.com email also appear on this PR release. Mabalu ( talk) 17:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

That's appalling. Paid editing is one thing, lying is another. I'm now attempting to have Jason Benz blocked. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

And then there's the question of whether this is simply an alternate account for banned sock User:Jasonbenz. I've raised the matter at SPI, though Mabalu points out we don't see the same Google evidence for that. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Appalling yes. Also faintly hilarious. Delete as per the other (unpaid) comments. JMWt ( talk) 21:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Jasonbenz2 has just been blocked indefinitely for using "Using Wikipedia for promotion, and deception." Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and, if any value is found, merge. And, for the record, i'm shocked, just shocked, that anyone might lie on WP; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete this article - pure promotion, nothing in searches shows notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user ( non-admin closure) GermanJoe ( talk) 17:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

21st (2015 film)

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

Both references given lack independence from the subject, what I could find in a search were only trailers and video clips (at least in English). Article needs reliable independent non-trivial sources to be retained. Production company, writer, stars, etc. are also not notable so far. KDS4444 ^Talk 12:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. Looks like it's already gone. FrameDrag ( talk) 17:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Dubem Ezembaegbu

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

This person fails WP:GNG, Google search returns just 3 hits, none of which are reliable sources. Seams that his greatest achievement was playing in the Greek fourth league, thus he also fails WP:NFOOTY. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 13:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - No significant independent coverage. Has not played in a fully-professional league or senior international football. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 03:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 16:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

HtmlUnit

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. Ping User:Tedickey who proposed this for deletion a while back, and User:Nigelj who objected. I reviewed the discussion, and the mentions of the software in academic works do not seem sufficient for me to merit its being encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric ( talk) 15:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as the best I found was some links at Books and News. SwisterTwister talk 08:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3] ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. @ Tedickey, Nigelj, and SwisterTwister: pinging users pinged by the nominator and participants to review the sources I found using the Google Books link and Google Scholar link atop this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

References

^ "Maven: A Developer's Notebook". pp. 83–86.
^ "Next Generation Java Testing". pp. 339– (subscription required)
^ Langer, A. "Extending HtmlUnit for test automatisation of Web applications using AJAX"; Betreuer/in (nen): T. Grechenig, M. Bernhart; 183/1, 2009. (subscription required)
^ "Refactoring HTML".
^ "Enjoying Web Development with Tapestry".
^ "JavaServer Faces: The Complete Reference". (subscription required)

keep This is enormously well known to any practitioner in the field of automated or continuous testing for web apps. I wonder just how much WP:BEFORE was carried out here? Certainly asking a web developer would have cleared this up. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. I added another reference to further reading. Also Google Scholar shows it in use in many projects.

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Berkeley Madonna

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Andreas27krause with the following rationale "Adding some more detail on what Berkeley Madonna is all about". Sadly, the refs still don't seem sufficient, and I don't see any better: this software exists, has been used by some scholars in their work, but what about it makes it encyclopedic? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric ( talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete perhaps unless this can be moved elsewhere as I found some links at Books but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 08:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment – @ SwisterTwister: no offense intended, but do you actually view the articles that the links go to, or do you just base your opinion from the search engine result summaries, such as how many times the name of a topic is in boldface in the summaries? I found the sources below quite easily, all of which provide significant coverage about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Northamerica1000 I noticeably view the articles and search engines, yes, but I hadn't found the links below, no. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep – Clearly and easily passes WP:GNG per sources found using the Google Scholar link and Google Books link atop this discussion. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. @ Piotrus and SwisterTwister: pinging participants herein to review sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
- @ Northamerica1000: Nobody is questioning that this software exist. By its nature, it probably is and as you've shown, has been used by some academics. However, I don't think a tool (software) becomes notable unless it is either widely used or has received in-depth coverage that would make it pass GNG. Since you've found those sources, would you mind commenting whether any of them provides in-depth coverage? Because I don't think anyone can argue this tool is widely used (as in - hundreds of papers, being a subject of instruction at various campuses, etc. - compare let's say SPSS). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
  reply here} 10:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

References

^ "Visualization and Communication of Pharmacometric Models With Berkeley Madonna". pp. 1-20.
^ Laboratory Manual of Biomathematics. pp. 3-17
^ "A System Dynamics Model For The Simulation Of A Non Multi Echelon Supply Chain: Analysis and Optimization Utilizing The Berkeley Madonna Software" pp. 503-512
^ "Berkeley-Madonna Implementation of Ikeda's Model". pp. 582-585. (subscription required)

Keep; not only mentioned in several peer-reviewed, multiply cited scientific papers [2] -- to be fair, many off-hand or as a comparison to the different software they ended up using -- but also described in some detail and even the focus of independently-written works (e.g. the Laboratory Manual of Biomathematics and CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology cites given by North America, respectively). I can also find a few links suggesting it's at least been briefly covered in post-secondary course instruction, if only as part of short workshops or labs [3] [4] [5]. -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Article's been heavily sourced since nomination so now meets GNG ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sally Tracy

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

Questionably notable and improvable with its current version and the best search links I found was only this, this, this and this and unfortunately this article hasn't changed much since starting in June 2007. Notifying author Gillyweed, tagger LibStar and also DGG who likes to be informed of AfDs for this subject. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - I've added more references to show notability but it does need a good edit. I'll try and get to it over the next week. She has quite a few articles in The Conversation which are commissioned but as they are not comments from third parties I assume that they hold less sway. The Sydney Morning Herald quotes her quite regularly on any maternity related matter. Gillyweed ( talk) 10:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. meets WP:PROF on 2 major criteria, author of a principal textbook in the field. Expert in her subject: Worldcat shows publications of hers with 232 (in BMJ), 108, etc. citations. Even in biomedicine, a2 papers with over 100 has always been considered sufficient (I consider the consensus has been that one such paper sufficient, but a few people at such discussions think it should be 2). As for GNG, meeting WP:PROF is explictly an alternative, but she probably meets the GNG also. We have in the past had considerable skepticism about articles on faculty in subjects traditionally dominated by women. I've been trying to fight this for eight years now, and it's time it were over. Maybe we can start restoring some of the articles about notable professors of home economics and nursing that were deleted in earlier years. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 23:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Sources aren't amazing (IMHO) but notability's there ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

David Lichens

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

Easily speedy and PRODable material if it hadn't happened before so given its history, an AfD is best and I honestly simply found nothing at all. Notifying past users and taggers Walter Görlitz, Iknow23, Thief12 (author), Cunard and TexasAndroid. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep Based on four articles listed in http://guidetopetra.com/articles.html. They're not on the Internet, but I do recall that it was a bead deal when he joined the band. I have radio specials that focus on the subject as well. The band was in decline at this time and he only played with the band for one album though. The article probably needs a re-write though. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Varsallone, Jim (1995-09-29). "Petra pioneered Christian rock". The Ledger. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  The article notes:
  
  David Lichens grew up listening to Aerosmith, Living Colour, Petra, and Van Halen.
  Little did he know that someday he would be playing guitar in a Christian band. Today, Lichens is the newest member of hte super rock Christian group Petra, bringing a youthful attitude and exuberance to the true pioneer of Christian rock.
  "It was a total last minute thing," he said. "It happened so quick. About seven months ago, I heard about the opening. Within three weeks it happened. God opened this door for me."
  Lichens, who spent time with the secular band the Don Reed Network hails from Pacific Northwest terrain, carrying a cloud of grungy alternative smoke. He joined Petra, after founding member Bob Hartman dropped a bombshell by deciding not to tour with the band.
2. Ehrbar, Joe (1996-04-11). "New Blood Young Musicians Inject Updated Sound Into Classis Christian Rock Group". The Spokesman-Review. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  The article notes:
  
  When guitarist David Lichens was in diapers, Petra was already a fixture on the Christian rock circuit.
  “They had been out about two years before I was born,” said Lichens in a phone interview last week.
  At age 22, Lichens is the lead guitarist of the band that carries the longest and most distinguished legacy of any recording artist in contemporary Christian music.
  ...
  By providing the sonic propulsion with his hook-laden riffs, Lichens is helping Petra compete with the army of younger holy rockers making noise in the Christian rock scene. Part of the reason is his influences stem from modern rock heavyweights Soundgarden, Live and Collective Soul and funkster Tower of Power.
  Further, before joining the Franklin, Tenn.-based unit, Lichens lived in one of the country’s fertile music communities, Portland. The scene undoubtedly molded his moody style.
3. Price, Deborah Evans (1995-05-27). "Higher Ground". Billboard. p. 38. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Petra welcomes new member: Founding Petra member/lead guitarist Bob Hartman has announced he's coming off the road, but will continue to work behind the scenes, focusing on the group's ministry efforts. Petra's new lead guitarist is 21-year-old David Lichens. The Portland, Ore., native previously performed with the Dan Reed Network while it toured with Bon Jovi.
4. Price, Deborah Evans (1996-11-23). "Higher Ground". Billboard. p. 60. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  The article notes:
  
  On the other hand, guitarist David Lichens and keyboardist Jim Cooper left in October due to creative differences. "I just felt that in the long run, they would not have been happy," [lead vocalist John Schlitt] says in reference to his decision to replace Lichens and Cooper. "They had things they wanted to do, and they had their own agendas ... We have to have guys in it that want to have the same direction that not only myself, but Bob Hartman, has. We work in unity."
5. Price, Deborah Evans (1997-03-01). "'Petra Praise 2' Set Shows Word Act's Staying Power". Billboard. p. 74. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  The article notes:
  
  [Pete] Orta and [Kevin] Brandow, who also perform in Schlitt's solo band, replaced keyboardist Jim Cooper and guitarist David Lichens when they departed over creative differences (Higher Ground, Billboard, Nov. 23, 1996). The new album was recorded in the midst of the personnel changes. Both Cooper and Lichens are featured on a few cuts, and Schlitt says they also had friends and guest musicians play on the project.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Lichens to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 05:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comp (rapper)

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

Definitely time for another AfD as there's seemingly no better notability and improvement with the only link even coming close to almost acceptable third-party this 2004 IGN and am simply not seeing how this article can become better for Wikipedia. Notifying the only still active AfD commenters Michig and Orangemike. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. The only thing I found that wasn't identified in the first AfD is a track in the soundtrack of the film Johnson Family Vacation, but I still don't feel there's enough to justify an article, and given the era he was around in I would expect to find more on the web if he was notable enough. -- Michig ( talk) 18:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - never hit our minimum standards, shows no signs that he ever will. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Difficult to research due to the commonality of the name, but I cannot find any in-depth coverage of a rapper by this name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:A7 and WP:A3. There's no real content in the article and upon second thought, I don't think that the Beyond Sims source would be the type to really give an assertion of notability. No need to have this for a full week, although if someone can show evidence of notability I may reopen it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Inside (Sims 4 Series)

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

This article is about a Sims 4 machinima youtube series with less than 100,000 views on its most viewed episode. The only other Sims machinima that have Wikipedia articles that I can find are Male Restroom Etiquette and The Strangerhood. Both of them assert their notability and have a number of secondary sources to draw from. To my knowledge, this series has not been written about by any secondary sources, and as such I believe that this is not a notable article topic. I have found this single article however - http://www.beyondsims.com/55011/community-spotlight-inside-sims-4-machinima/ , but this probably isn't enough. This article was created in good faith and I don't mean to discourage. Elzbenz ( talk) 06:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. This could possibly be speedied as a non-notable webseries, but the community spotlight could be seen as just enough of an assertion of notability to where A7 wouldn't really qualify. However it could also qualify under no context, since all we have here is a box listing the characters. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Note that the nominator !voted keep later in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Chief Sunrise Education Centre

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources, other than a single source which is (self) published by the organization which runs the Centre. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Commemt I seem to recall all high schools are automatically notable if we can prove they exist(ed). Can someone confirm? Legacypac ( talk) 04:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Once you prove it exists with verifiable references from reliable sources in the article, I will change my !vote. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - Jeff G., that is correct, but the standard for proving its existence is lower than you think. As long as it is a diploma granting institution and not a tutoring center or other primarily commercial venture, all that is needed for proof of existence is its own website, which we have here. This is per notability guidelines for schools at WP:SCH/AG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. As far as outside reliable sources go, they are going to be few and far between given this institution's location. I find the numerous blog hits to the local news blog for Hay River to also be convicting on this outfit's existence. Doubt that a newspaper would do too well way out there. The blog is no doubt their substitute for it. Whereas I wouldn't source BLP stuff to it, it does make a compelling case for the school's existence. John from Idegon ( talk) 17:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per John from Idegon. Not striking out anything because it is technically still true. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Weise

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

Non-notable reporter. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 03:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Total lack of sources other than a bio from her employer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete She's a working journalist, who no doubt does her job well. But that is no more notable than being a working civil servant, academic, dentist, etc. who does their job well. She doesn't hold a high editorial position or appear to have won any journalism awards. I can find no articles about her. Only profiles of herself and newspaper articles written by her. Her book, A Parent's Guide to Mandarin Immersion, has negligible library holdings [6] and no reviews in major publications. It's published by "Chenery Street Books" and appears to be their sole publication. Weise lives on Chenery Street in San Francisco, suggesting the book may be self-published. Note that she is not to be confused with Elizabeth Reba Weise, an academic specialising in gender issues. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment, We may as well use that criteria in regards to sports figures or any other profession--ie, they are just doing their job. We need to see if her award is notable. A fellowship from Stanford seems notable. Being a major correspondent seems notable. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Why stop with sports figures? I foresee chefs, actors, directors, doctors, lawyers, scientists, comedians, artists, stockbrokers, philosophers, politicians, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera... !!! -- MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 02:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Re "chefs, actors, directors, doctors, lawyers, scientists, comedians, artists, stockbrokers, philosophers, politicians", they should be covered here not simply for doing their job well, but because they have received significant third party coverage or have been recognized as being at the top of their profession via the positions they have held, e.g. fellow of a learned society where such a position is highly selective and externally nominated, being editor-in-chief of a major newspaper, etc. or major awards received, etc. That particular fellowship at Stanford is given to 20 people per year, every year. It is not significantly selective. Like all graduate fellowships of this type, the recipients themselves apply for it (they are not externally nominated). Selection is normally based on an evaluation how well you write your application, e.g. in the Stanford Journalism School, the selection is based on:

We select fellows who identify and articulate a challenge in journalism that they want to work on addressing. We expect them to arrive in the program with more questions than answers and we seek people who are eager to experiment and to change course based on what they learn along the way.

Frankly, such fellowships are literally a dime a dozen in academia and are not indicative of either general notability or even notability within a profession. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Then Wikipedia should make more exacting rules about notability. Like must have 10 reliable sources. What I see most, is that notability comes down to like or dislike over anything else. Oh, and, (my favorite one), since I don't know anything about that subject, it must not be notable! -- MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

In this case, it is quite straightforward, requiring no further "more exacting rules". There is not even one reliable source independent of the subject that discusses her in depth (WP:BASIC). Nor is there any source that attests to her passing any of the alternative criteria at WP:ANYBIO or at WP:JOURNALIST. Read them. This isn't even borderline. Are you seriously suggesting that those of us opining "delete" here are doing so simply because we don't like journalists or because we know nothing about journalism (or academia for that matter)? Thaddäus Troll is just one example of multiple articles that I've written about journalists and writers. I have also written multiple articles on academics, argued "keep" and/or rescued many more at AfD, and am a retired academic myself. Voceditenore ( talk) 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Nothing on Wikipedia is straight forward! WP:IAR -- MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per voceditenore. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - as not notable.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 20:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Why would a reporter that is a fellow of the John S. Knight Journalism at Stanford be considered not notable on Wikipedia? Ottawahitech ( talk) 06:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Holding a fellowship or being a past fellow does not make one immediately notable. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass notability criteria. Voceditenore's analysis gives an almost perfect explanation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Question: which wp:notability criteria are you referring to? please ping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 November 2015‎

Keep. Agree that neither her journalism nor her fellowship is sufficient for notability, per Voceditenore. While her book is not mentioned in the WP article, it does give her notability, and notability is an attribute of the person and not of the article. Her book, "A Parent's Guide to Mandarin Immersion", is a bible of Chineese language education for children in the United States, and with the large immigrant Chineese population, there are many weekend and evening schools teaching Mandarin to tens of thousands of children. Here are links to a few of the many Asian organization covering the book: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. The book also has multiple reviews on Amazon. Such a book is obviously not reviewed by major publications, just as a book on astrophysics, lesbian socialism or Pokemón isn't, but notability is not the same as mainstream. What matters is that the person is notable within the subject area in which he or she is active. If not, almost all scientists need to be removed from Wikipedia. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we can find information about obscure but notable things, like the author of the most important book for how to teach Chinese to kids living outside of China. I can understand why the short article was nominated for deletion, but with some expansion to cover the book that the thorough investigation by Voceditenore unearthed, the Elizabeth Weise article will be a wonderful contribution to the Wikipedia Asian Month . Martinogk ( talk) 05:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Martinogk, this isn't really multiple independent coverage by Asian organizations and certainly not sufficient to establish the book's notability. The first is from a parents' association in the San Mateo School District announcing that Weise was coming to speak at their Parent Education Night. The second is on the Mandarin Immersion Parents Council blog written by Weise herself with quotes from the book jacket blurbs. (In fact, the majority of posts on that blog are by Weise.) The fourth is simply an advert from a bookstore selling the book. The fifth is a brief review on the website of a parents' group at an elementary school in Orange County. The third one, from the Asian Society, is the only one which I would consider from an Asian organization per se, and it's not a review. It's a two-sentence description. It certainly doesn't describe it as " a bible of Chinese language education for children in the United States". Chinese immersion teaching in the US is not an esoteric topic. It receives quite a lot of coverage in both the mainstream and specialist press, e.g. education journals. Similarly, there are reviews/coverage of books on esoteric subjects like astrophysics [7] and lesbian socialism [8] in even the mainstream press. Before arguing for deletion I looked extensively for coverage of this book and could only find the kind of stuff cited. The main reason for the lack of reviews/in depth coverage isn't that the book is on an esoteric subject. It's because it's self-published. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The Source Dance Company

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

Non-notable local business. There are 4 of these kinds of businesses in my little town. Legacypac ( talk) 05:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Local theatre troupe who did three productions. Not seeing the notability here. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: I'm afraid none of the information in this article rises above the trivial or routine: there is no claim of notability. I have looked carefully, twice now, through current search results (general and news) and there is only more of the same: routine mentions of performances and dancers who are now elsewhere. (This is no criticism of the company itself, I actually have quite a good impression of them from what I have read). -- Mirokado ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete-searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 12:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Idriss Aberkane

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

This demand follows a deletion process on the French Wikipédia : the local criteria WP:CGN (notability) and WP:NSU (adademics) are obviously not reached. Moreover this page seems to be an autobiographical advertising.

None of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC seems to be reached, this person almost never appears in academics review in French or English ( CAIRN : 0, Persée : 0, OpenEdition : 0, JSTOR : 0 ; ScienceDirect : 1).

About the newspaper Le Point : he is only invited and is not editorialist, even only journalist (btw usurpation of professional titles is a criminal offence in France).

I apologise for my English and eventually the lacks of my knowledge about the deletion policy in en.wp. Кумкум ( talk) 17:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Edit: the page in fr.wp is deleted (Keep: 2 / Delete: 11). Кумкум ( talk) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Edit Edit: the history of this deletion process (on fr.wp) shows some disposable and/or single purpose accounts such as Eiram P, Eisongosona, Timinette and Jasamdarja, and several IPs ( 2.8.108.33, 77.152.115.14, 31.35.183.167, 134.157.4.53) and others. They were active roughly at the same time, and have all the same kind of french and the same behavior. Then, I would like to draw your attention to this article on a extremely local and non-notable blog where we learn that we are malicious and anonym hands and that Aberkane is no less than a genius, who said the very next day that this article was excellent. Two days later he calls to stuff the discussion vote. I am not a connoisseur of the AfD processes on en.wp but I hope those elements give you clarifications about some of things you will see there. Кумкум ( talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Sam Sailor: : I'm on the French Wikipedia since 2008. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 05:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Кумкум is openly lying. Here is a formal proof that Idriss Aberkane is an Editorialist https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bx4sWiWIMAAAmw9.jpg anybody knowing Le Point can trivially confirm that this page is that of editorials. see also this link https://twitter.com/PhilippeVandel/status/512896173552975872/photo/1 Propagating false news is a real criminal offense in France, for which charges could be pressed. A group of French people is trying to defame the French page, and to export it to the en.wiki one. Expect other unsourced defamations in the future. This one, already, could be accounted for legally as it is a blatant lie. Also, I checked the last issue of Le Point (Nov. 5th 2015) and Mr. Aberkan's editorial was on page 20. His editorials seem to be published monthly and are not to be confused with his web articles, which are separated. I also found, among many others, this intervention on CNBC Africa http://www.cnbcafrica.com/video/?bctid=4507882588001 Timinette ( talk) 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Timinette ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I found news and journal articles featuring him: here, here, here, here. It is easy to find other sources that are not as reliable as these appear to be, including videos of his Ted talk. He does not show up much in G-Scholar and not at all in JSTOR, but these may not be as accurate for non-US researchers. I would learn toward a weak keep but I don't claim to have done sufficient research beyond what I report here. LaMona ( talk) 01:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

- Hi LaMona, thank you for your research. Here are some clarifications about the links you brought:
- Le Café pédagogique is an interview, therefore a WP:PRIMARY source
- The article in Mrmondialisation: the author is unknown, and this site does not seems to be famous in any domain (I personnaly verify since 2013 the notability of academics on the fr.wp and I never seen it)
- La Nouvelle République is a very local press, and covers 5 départements (101 départements in France)
- Fondapol is a conservative think tank, and this link is not a secondary source and does not concern M. Aberkane. Кумкум ( talk) 16:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The assertion that Aberkane does not fit with Wikipedia's "notability" guidelines is a tone-deaf interpretation. Even more than tone-deaf, it is wrong.

To refresh the memory of the administrators:

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.

Examples "worthy of notice", "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded":

A broadcast expert on CNBC Africa: http://www.cnbcafrica.com/video/?bctid=4507882588001

A paid speaker for several organizations.

AT Kearney: a top 5 global consulting firm

His profile on their site https://www.atkearney.com/web/digital-business-roundtable-emea-2015/speakers/-/asset_publisher/JZbGEm6EDwNy/content/aberkane-idriss-speaker?_101_INSTANCE_JZbGEm6EDwNy_redirect=%2Fweb%2Fdigital-business-roundtable-emea-2015%2Fspeakers

His Talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BeVBKnlErU&list=PLtu-il4eH2D97KRDkugcpHnZbspQlj9jW&index=

His published work at France's Wired, Le Point. http://www.lepoint.fr/invites-du-point/idriss-j-aberkane/

I don't see a problem here. He seems legitimate to me, and his ideas are worth spreading. Malessandro ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Malessandro ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

"A paid speaker for several organizations." How can you prove it? Кумкум ( talk) 00:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

"Kymkym" are we having semantical arguments, or are we engaging in fairness and an adherence to the notability clause of wikipedia? Aberkane clearly fits within the notability clause. In the spirit of the word "paid" is the notion that he has been an "invited" speaker, as is evident in any variety of youtube and google searches. Aside from those whose salaries are public, wikipedia does not require, not urge, nor suggest, the need to prove payment as a measure of notability. I fear that you are too enthusiastic about your deleting prowess, and perhaps should reframe your opinion on this matter. Malessandro ( talk) 15:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Malessandro ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment These two references from national newspaper articles “le monde “ Aberkane

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/09/10/la-crevette-la-libellule-et-l-araignee-au-secours-de-l-economie-francaise_4751949_3244.html

http://www.fondapol.org/debats/le-monde-la-connaissance-le-desir-et-la-competence/ du 28 mai 2015 Article read in full on Fondapol

full article for newspaper subscribers: http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2015/05/28/l-economie-de-la-connaissance-une-histoire-d-amour-et-de-savoirs_4642775_3232.html?xtmc=aberkane&xtcr=2 -- Timinette ( talk) 09:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Timinette ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Кумкум obviously seems to have personal grief against Idriss Aberkane. He is not researching the truth. He is just trying to depreciate this person on the internet. As it was said He is openly lying about the fact that He is not a journalist ( of course he is). He is also publicly insulting this person on this page ("mediocre etudiant perpétuel"). Insults, defamation and denigration are condemned by the french law... The english page of Idriss Aberkane is also very different from it's french copy (I may say "was" because the french page was deleted). ( Eisongosona ( talk) 10:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)) Eisongosona ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I feel that many statements in favor of keeping the page have missed the point, and some of them seem purposedly misleading. I’d like to add some clarifications from my own perspective.

1. Some of the articles listed herein on defense of keeping the page are poorly relevant, as detailled for some of them by Кумкум. Indeed, some articles were published in local news, not national. Others are either primary sources, or weak secondary sources were Aberkane is marginally referred to. Finally, the description of Le Point as « France’s Wired » by Malessandro is incorrect. Le Point is a generalist magazine, covering all aspects of current news with a low level of depth and technicity. It often adopts a populist tone and slightly xenophobic front page. Comparing it with a reference tech medium such as Wired is erroneous at the very least.

2. Beyond the debate about the quantity and quality of the source, I think there is a confusion between digital visibility and intellectual influence and legacy. Yes, the subject of this page did have published some journal articles, and some journal articles about him were also written. But for a person presented as « editor » and « entrepreneur », having written a few notes and articles is the least that can be expected. Are we going to write a wikipedia page on every soccer player who successfully attempted a penalty kick? I have not seen any sign of profound and long lasting influence of Aberkane’s work on the intellectual or business landscape (academic prize, taught theory, contribution largely commented by his peers, business model or achievements commented on by top business media, etc). Therefore, I don’t think a biographical page on Idriss Abekane is yet relevant for Wikipedia.

3. Several accusations have been made of manipulation, plot, hidden agenda on fr.wp and I’ve seen the beginning of it here too. It is tiresome to have to comment on such petty accusations. Yet, it is a fact that the large majority of the wikipedia accounts arguing to keep the Aberkane page on fr.wk had no other previous contributions to wikipedia, as if they had been created for the sole purpose of keeping that page. It is a fact that Idriss Aberkane himself participated in the discussion of his own page, hinting people of legal repercussion. It is a fact that someone claiming to be a sociologue running a collective experiment pretended on fr.wk to have uncovered a scientist-led conspiracy aiming at taking down Aberkane, publicly providing (erroneous) professional information about wikipedia contributors. It is a fact, finally, that Aberkane tentatively talked his twitter followers into « defending his page », as reported by Кумкум earlier. Taken all those observations together, this leads me to have a strong suspicion of promotional content in that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saksihw ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Pinging previous article editors for possible feedback ( Revent— Timtrent— Clone200— Sfan00 IMG— Postcard Cathy— Fimatic— Waacstats— Wavelength— Ser Amantio di Nicolao— Stamptrader) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. I only found two of what look like reliable in-depth independent sources on the subject [9] [10] (one in French but that makes no dfference for notability). But two may be enough for WP:GNG. On the other hand, the article needs a lot of cleanup. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak delete, Based on Кумкум's critique of the lanouvellerepublique source, only [11] seems to hold, and one source is just not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment : référence Mail & Guardian Africa's http://mg.co.za/article/2015-09-23-the-geeks-shall-inherit-the-earth -- Timinette ( talk) 09:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - per sources from Timinette including above. I'm always a little suspicious of agenda in these cases where someone shows up at AfD and says "We deleted this off XYZ-language Wikipedia and you need to delete the English one too." His article is a mess but he meets the GNG of the English-language Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete My main points : 1. The page is very poorly sourced and the two sources are irrelevant to the topic or do not meet Wikipedia standards. 2. The durable influence and impact of Aberkane as a thinker or as an entrepreneur in the society is not demonstrated. 3. Based on the heated debate on the french version of this page, I highly a suspect of promotional content. Saksihw ( talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep - He is quite well known in France and in French-speaking Belgium (where I reside). I have received at least one or two mails recommending some of his videos. Unlike alleged above, he IS listed as a journalist by Le Point. http://www.lepoint.fr/journalistes-du-point/idriss-j--aberkane. However, his videos and articles that I've seen appear to be more sensationalist than scientifically rigorous -- Jacques de Selliers ( talk) 18:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC) - Modified -- Jacques de Selliers ( talk) 09:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: As I mentionned in my more detailed text above, what is at stake is not determining whether he did write or not in Le Point, as this is pretty obvious. What is at stake here is knowing whether or not, as a thinker and an entrepreneur, he has a noticeable and long-lasting influence on the intellectual and business worlds, thereby justifying a page on Wikipedia. Saksihw ( talk) 11:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Being a journalist at Le Point is not enough to have a Wikipedia page. Looking at the "sources" provided by the supporters of the page, I am still not satisfied: it is not enough to give a bunch of links to show the digital visibility, it is important to provide reliable secondary sources, as explained here: Wikipedia Policy. So far, I haven't seen enough sources (not links!) in this debate nor on Wikipedia page. Moreover, his french page has been deleted and I don't see why its English one should be kept (Idriss Aberkane is not very famous in France and is even less in the rest of the world!) Alaleutyr ( talk) 23:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The sources found by David Eppstein and Timinette are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep, admittedly this is marginal, but the sources listed by David Eppstein are enough as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 12:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus clear, but I'll be happy to draftify for any user who requests it. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 12:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sunny Moodie

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

Contested prod. Director that falls under way too soon-first film has not even been released yet! Wgolf ( talk) 02:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello Wgolf. Thank you for reviewing my page on Director Sunny Moodie. His first film Wild Hearts screened at the Berlinale and is pending release with a major European player (read in Screen International). I pride myself on spotting notable talent early in their careers. I also know he was invited to join the Directors Guild of the UK (one of the youngest ever) through my own relationship with that guild. I recognize I am new to Wikipedia, please give an old man a hand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalfthewise221 ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Having used the excellent news tool i am confident that Sunny Moodie meets the notability requirements and will contribute a more substantive article relating to his work with The Highland Shakespeare Company which includes reviews and features from national press and trade media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalfthewise221 ( talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

awaiting your response WGOLF! i researched very thoroughly the guidelines before presuming to create content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalfthewise221 ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for now and draft & userfy if needed as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - There is no reliable coverage of his film career. Some other coverage exists by virtue of him standing for a local government election at a young age, but this is unrelated to his film career. The article fails to demonstrate that he meets the notability standards that are set out in WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. In terms of the film career there isn't any reliably sourced material to userfy. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 12:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Draft and userfy to Gandalfthewise221, since they are an interested editor. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER at the moment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Jayanth Munigala

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

This is a biography of a retired civil servant from India, which has been tagged for notability for almost 3 years. The lead describes his claim to fame as being the first national civil servant to come from a particular rural district, a fact which is not sourced. Most of the article is unsourced, including his date of birth.
His career as described in the article looks like that of a relatively successful civil servant, but not one that requires an encyclopedic biography. His final role was as controller of the state university entrance examination council.
6 sources are currently used in the article. The first is his name in a list of officers stationed in a district. Two are news articles quoting him in the context of his role as secretary for disaster management in one of the states. One is a PDF noting his membership of a working group. Finally there are two articles which note his appointment and voluntary retirement from the examination council. So all of these are merely passing mentions without any biographical information. There was also an "Articles" section which reproduced some of the sources, plus some other articles with again only passing mentions, so I deleted that.
There is also a list of three ebooks that he is written, but the contents of that do not meet WP:NAUTHOR. So in summary, this is a BLP that falls well short of WP:GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 01:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment by nominator: When I went to notify the author of the article of this nomination, I discovered that it was mainly written by Munigala, so it is likely that this is an autobiography. The user's talk page indicates that it was speedy deleted at least once before. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 01:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest keeping and the best my searches found was one link. Pinging past users FoCuSandLeArN and Peaceworld111 and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom's great investigation. Legacypac ( talk) 06:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: An autobiography by a man with a job (retired). Passing in-role mentions do not amount to biographical notability, nor does self-publishing e-books with pothi.com. AllyD ( talk) 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Vine of Sodom

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

not notable Editor2020, Talk 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: While mentioned, there's really not a lot of RS that gives an in-depth discussion of the phrase. So far the best I've found is this bit in a Bible commentary and this part in a dictionary. Don't we have a list page about terms and concepts mentioned in the Bible? If more can't be found then I'd support a merge and redirect to there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ah. I was thinking of List of plants in the Bible. That list article seems to refer to actual plants, so I don't know if a merge would be appropriate here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 00:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep It appears in sermons and Bible commentaries, albeit more often in older ones since this translation has gone out of recent translations. Going back years, you can see that 5-20 people a day come to Wikipedia ot identify this odd phrase. Phrases found in the King James Version, like this one, take on a life of their own, separate from the identification of the plant. A fuller article seems more useful than a redirect to the List of Bible Plants, since it is a phrase that is referenced and discussed by theologians, in addition to being a plant. So, keep this one, just as we keep, Stumbling block, Suffer fools gladly, et al. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

David Batstone

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

Fails notability guidelines in WP:AUTHOR and also does not seem to be a notable academic. Kelly ^hi! 13:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep There are some issues with the article's use of sources but still seems enough to establish notability. Also a widely-published author, journalist, etc. 169.231.4.229 ( talk) 04:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
KEEP as per WP:GNG. The. Sources. Are. Out. There. They. Just. Are. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Sources do not equal notability. Do any of them show this person meets WP:AUTHOR, i.e. "he person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" or any of the other criteria? Kelly ^hi! 17:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

KeepSeems to me that several book authors consider him notable enough to write about him. He has also had a fair number of profiles in the media, and is semi-regularly cited as a source in international media. In my view, that suggests that he is notable. JMWt ( talk) 09:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Uncertain as Books, News, Highbeam and Newspapers Archive all found some links including suggesting he is mostly best known for that Not for Sale group so this would have to be improved to be accepted. Notifying DGG who may have some insight with this. SwisterTwister talk 08:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. Unambiguously notable as an author -- see list of books in WorldCat [12] -- note the very high library holdings-- over 1200 for Not for sale, 000 for saving the corporate soul. Tho not a formal criterion, it indicate widespread public interest and the certainty of multiple significant review. The article does need rewriting to remove some puffery. But there's enough content to escape G11. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

David W. Lowry

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

BLP currently as WP:COATRACK for invention "SpinePort". Quick BLP search books: no, news: no, scholar: yes . May need assessing against WP:PROF, but... Taking to AfD due to invention needing WP:MEDRS which it currently fails, and BLP fails V. (note paid COI, blocked creator) Widefox; talk 13:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Promotional article by a blocked paid editor. Not sufficient coverage of to meet GNG. Jbh ^Talk 14:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. The sources are not independent and high-profile enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. And with only one publication that has over 100 citations in Google scholar (and a middle position in the author list of that paper), in a high-citation field, I don't see much of a case for WP:PROF either. So even ignoring the promotional aspects of the article, I don't see much of a reason to keep it. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - David Eppstein's analysis hits the nail on the head. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Userfy. The topic is not appropriate for the article space at this time, but there is no harm in allowing the creator to develop it further. Article content moved to User:Hellohart/Kansas Bowling. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Kansas Bowling

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

A case of too soon, known for a film which as yet doesn't exist. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The film is coming out in March on DVD and vod and does exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellohart ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

If you say it's too soon, would there be a way to temporarily take the page down until the film comes out? What makes it legitimate? The poster? The trailer? Let me know Hellohart ( talk) 22:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

As it's too soon, the article could be moved to draftspace if others agree. In order to stay on Wikipedia, you need reliable sources about them, to show that they are notable. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

And any move would not be immediate or automatic. it would still be dependent upon the subject meeting the criteria for a stand alone article. actually having a product instead of the promise of a product will sometimes be the tipping point that convinces some people. but the actual product on the market also often leads to more actual coverage of the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as I see nothing currently better. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 01:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Does not seem likely it will ever be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Userfy. If this is "too soon", then it should be given back to the writer. It seems as though they are getting whacked for being new, but that's nothing unusual. -- MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 02:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete or Userfy - WP:TOOSOON indeed. There's some buzz about her (more so, I think, than the movie), but not enough to satisfy WP:BIO at this point. No objection to userfication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Axis (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. "Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." Flat Out ( talk) 23:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Article cites three reviews (now with archiveurls) and could be expanded to Start class: passes WP:NALBUMS. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 00:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep satisfies WP:NALBUMS - start clas article. Dan arndt ( talk) 01:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. Many more sources added. Canley ( talk) 22:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Pale Rider (Drapht album)

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

Withdrawn by nominator Flat Out ( talk) 03:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NALBUMS. "Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." Flat Out ( talk) 23:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Little more than a tracklisting and infobox - not enough for a standalone article. Nothing really to merge and a redirect from this title wouldn't be useful. -- Michig ( talk) 07:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Access to three reviews, airplay on Triple J, passes WP:NALBUMS. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 02:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)02:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC) It could be expanded to start class. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 07:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't see any reviews of this album. -- Michig ( talk) 18:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

delete some of the sources are not reputable music press. Simply being played in Triple J does not give a free pass to notability. LibStar ( talk) 12:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - satisfies WP:NALBUMS, is definitely more than a basic stub article. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

please explain how it meets NALBUMS. LibStar ( talk) 07:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply

has been subject of multiple independent reliable sources. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Coverage appears to be highly localized or lacking in substantial detail about the subject. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Brian Graff

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a neighbourhood activist and non-winning city council candidate, which is not sourced to any substantive coverage of him as a topic in his own right — right across the board, every single source here is an invalid primary source, a community weekly newspaper which is not widely distributed enough to count toward getting the subject over WP:GNG, and/or an article which glancingly namechecks or blurbs his existence in the process of failing to be substantively about him. It's not impossible for topics of primarily local notability to get into Wikipedia, but this is not the level of sourcing it takes to get there — if this were Torontopedia, I might let it go, but nothing here is substantive or well-sourced enough, or of enough extralocal interest, to demonstrate that he warrants permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 22:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

i am frustrated and find this whole system confusing- the "Community weekly newspaper is a bi-weekly that is delivered to about 25,000 homes in Toronto.

I have made a few edits to correct other things, but this is the 3rd time i tried to create something from scratch and feel like giving up. Signed: Doctor Bunsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbunsen ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Community weekly newspapers, which are distributed exclusively locally and are not widely archived, are not sufficient sourcing to demonstrate that the topic is notable enough to warrant coverage in an encyclopedia. They can be sparingly used for some supplementary confirmation of facts after you've already covered off the notability issue with stronger sourcing, but they cannot be the foundation of the sourcing — if you're going for newspaper coverage, the foundation of the sourcing has to be daily newspapers in the Star, Sun, Globe & Mail, National Post, Ottawa Citizen, London Free Press, etc., range. One example of why the distinction matters is that if something ever happened which resulted in the Toronto Star or Globe and Mail websites becoming permanently lost, we would still have access to widely-available archives of their content in public libraries and news databases like ProQuest — so their content will always be verifiable in perpetuity regardless of what might happen to the publications themselves. But there are no comparable public archives of the Beach Metro Community News — so if it ever suffers a similar fate, those will simply become lost references that we can't recover any other way, and any information referenced to them will have to be removed from the article if we can't find replacement ones somewhere else.

What you need to keep in mind, if you want to avoid frustration in the future, is that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Your readership for any given article is not just your neighbour, who might be looking for information about Brian Graff or Gene Domagala because they're locally known — your readership also lives in Oslo and Johannesburg and Manila and Los Angeles and Edinburgh and Mumbai. So if you want an article to be kept, then please familiarize yourself with what constitutes notability for our purposes — local activism on local issues, sourced to local coverage in local community weekly newspapers, is not enough to demonstrate that a person is nationally or internationally noteworthy. Our goal is not to have an article about everybody who exists at all; it's to have articles about people whom a national and/or international audience has a serious reason to know or learn about. Bearcat ( talk) 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I feel bad for Doctobunsen and others who have edited this article, but Bearcat is right, the coverage is awfully trivial. Even substantial coverage in Toronto newspapers could perhaps justify this article but none of the sources are about Graff, they just tangentially mention him. There's simply not enough sources to create an article about him, unless more can be uncovered. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I added a couple of extra links - and there are others I could have added but they relate to the election campaign or I can't really work in. I disagree with the comments about this being an international resource and therefore local things are of no interest - the thing is that there is no Canadapedia or Torontopedia and if someone is looking up something about Toronto where else are they going to find information... were I to move to another Canadian city and wanted to know the local history I would check here first. I also think it useful to provide information about defeated candidates - somebody looking at the race will find information on the winner but knowing who they defeated provides context and information about that race. I don't have access to Proquest (never heard of it before) or Lexisnexis, but a lot of what goes on this days is not in major newpapers, and even those things are going on line - same goes for tv coverage which is now online but videos of cbc or city-tv other local stations will get lost. In future a lot of materials will be lost just as we have lost most of the silent movies and we only have secondary information about them. Is wikipedia so hard up for storage space that articles need to be deleted and the work that went into them lost? Why spend time creating something when there might be a high risk that it won't be considered notable enough to be accepted? It would seem to me that if things are reported in something like a community paper and it is not in ProQuest or whatever that Wikipedia becomes even more important as the information will be duplicated and thus this only summarises what can be found elsewhere or is only found in local libraries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbunsen ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

also - i looked at the new mP for the area and what info there is about him - /info/en/?search=Nathaniel_Erskine-Smith - other than the elections canada numbers the information comes from a TV stations website and from the liberal party website - neither of those pages are likely to exist on the internet with that information in 5 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbunsen ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Elected MPs are a topic that reliable sources do cover quite regularly and extensively — so even if the article looks inadequate at first when he's newly elected, it will become more extensively sourceable over the course of his career. So no, you're not making a valid comparison to an analogous situation. Bearcat ( talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

a lot of politicians that are elected, like backbenchers, often are not quoted except in local/community newspapers... take this former Toronto Councillor: http://www.metronews.ca/views/opinion/2015/10/29/which-voting-system-should-canada-use.html or a few current ones have very thin articles with no major newspapers cited, like /info/en/?search=John_Campbell_(Ontario_politician) or /info/en/?search=Frank_Di_Giorgio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbunsen ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Incorrect; all elected federal MPs always get major media coverage of some kind. They may not all get the same volume of it as a cabinet minister does, but no elected federal MP or provincial MPP ever goes entirely uncovered by any mainstream daily newspaper or television station or radio news operation at all. "Quoted" has nothing to do with it, because "quoted in coverage of other things" isn't what gets a person into Wikipedia — being the subject of media coverage is what gets a person into Wikipedia. And no elected MP ever fails to be the subject of coverage — regardless of how often they are or aren't quoted as a provider of a soundbite in an article that isn't about them, that's not the only kind of coverage that a politician can garner. And it's still an invalid comparison to a non-analogous situation — a person who has held a notable political office is automatically in a different galaxy of notability and sourceability than an unelected candidate for a notable office is; actual MPs are a thing that a large number people will be looking for information about, while unsuccessful candidates for a city council seat are not. Bearcat ( talk) 15:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete If anything he has done might be worth mentioning it would be in an article in the sub-area of Toronto where he is active. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Non-notable local figure. Graham ( talk) 04:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

it is incredibly disheartening that the work i did is deleted and there is no record of it or means of taking the information for use elsewhere- and another article i drafted has similarly facing difficulties.

frankly, i feel like giving up on this entirely... what is the harm in publishing articles that are reasonable and of local interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbunsen ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

M2SYS Technology

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

Questionably notable and improvable as I'm simply not seeing much better improvement here with the best my searches finding here, here and here. The first AfD in 2008 was a keep but this clearly needs more current comments as this article has existed basically the same since June 2007 and not being changed again until what appears to be a company person in January 2008. Pinging past AfD commenters Eastmain and TenPoundHammer and the only still active past taggers Truthanado and Mean as custard and lastly DGG in case he wants to comment. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 1. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'm a little surprised at the keeps in the first review. Entirely insubstantial sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment. I found a podcast at http://hitconsultant.net/2012/11/14/biometric-patient-id-technology-with-m2sys-president-michael-trader/ I'm not sure whether hitconsultant.net should be considered a reliable source. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - Yeah, not much has happened since 2009 but notability is not temporary and there seemed to be a reasonable case for retaining in the last AfD. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf ( talk) 23:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

List of New South Wales Rural Fire Service brigades

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

I'm not sure about this list, it's messy and appears unencyclopedic. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY I think it should not stay here. I'll be glad if anyone could improve it. Jim Carter 11:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as this has existed since March 2007 and I'm simply not seeing anything better and even User:NE2 said this would need improving or otherwise deletion in January 2008. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

delete per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar ( talk) 15:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - perfectly legitimate WP:STANDALONE list. It is beneficial to the encyclopaedia to include a list of rural fire brigades and the equipment they have on hand, even if most individual brigades are not notable of themselves. Neither indiscriminate nor trivial. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 00:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - This article doesn't need deletion, it needs severe improvement. I suggest improving the lead and removing the alphabetical section. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

you haven't provided a reason how notability is met. LibStar ( talk) 14:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY per nom, and I can't see Yeti Hunter's or Catmando999's reasons as further strengthening WP:GNG for this list.

It is a legitimate content fork from New South Wales Rural Fire Service - a list of extant brigades and their location is useful information for numerous situations, but it would be overkill to include it on the main article page. It is not indiscriminate; the number of brigades is finite and relatively small. WP:NOTDIR does not apply; the appropriate guideline is WP:STANDALONE, which states that "usefulness" is a reasonable criterion for list creation. It is certainly conceivable that a user might need to determine the location of fire brigades in the region for a number of reasons. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep and update to current style. It's a bounded and countable structured list, although the alphabetic section appears to duplicate the hierarchy, without the structure, so isn't needed in the article. That's a content issue, not existence. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 12:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I have removed the alphabetic listing and the excessive bolding style to make the article look a bit more normal. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 10:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 12:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sean Michael Afable

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

Questionably notable and improvable article as it seems he's simply best known from Akeelah and the Bee and although this could've simply be redirected there, I still question the need for this staying and finally the best my searches found was this, this, this and this. I would've simply PRODded this much like Mollie Molligan which I initiate earlier but given Sean Michael's CAMIE Award, I nominated it instead although that award won't save this article. Pinging interested users who comment at these subjects Rms125a@hotmail.com and Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - He's had significant roles in at least 3 films (Akeelah and the Bee, To Save a Life, and Hardflip), to of which are notable by wiki standards, and the third might be. In addition he had a featured, although smaller, role in another notable film, Boogie Town. One Warm Night was a webseries in which he had the leading role. I didn't do a search for WP:GNG, but to me, he barely squeaks by with this resume as meeting WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: without prejudice as TOO SOON. Guest starring roles and filmography are only sections of article with any value, rest is self-promotion and cruft, and those two don't quite support notability yet, IMHO. Quis separabit? 13:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Never usually close on one !vote but Seocndary/High Schools are always kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES so wrapping ti up ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The Meadows school (Leek)

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

School is not notable. KDS4444 ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Can't we just say it's a low-importance article. I don't think Leek High is particularly notable but that stays.-- Awesomewiki64 ( talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: Awesomewiki64 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Further note that this is utterly and completely irrelevant. Article creators are perfectly entitled to express an opinion at AfD. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The one (bolded) "keep" opinion doesn't address the reasons for deletion, and the other "keep" opinion isn't enough on its own to stop a consensus for deletion. Sandstein 19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Don't Make the Black Kids Angry

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

Despite the sources, this is a self-published through Amazon's CreateSpace and I can find no reliable sources discussing it in depth. The links are all to the usual right-wing etc sources that would praise anything like this book. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

While some of article sources may be the usual right-wing etc. sources that would praise anything like this book. they are notable sources. This sounds like another example of Wikipedia, I just don't like it Neptune's Trident ( talk) 16:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: Neptune's Trident ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Um, why are you still adding sources to show that he wrote the book? That only needs one source. The issue is whether "The book has been the subject" of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."

""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source." So it isn't a question of whether a source is notable enough to have its own article, but if it's non-trivial. Doug Weller ( talk) 18:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I am adding other notable references to the article as I find them. Again, Wikipedia is supposed to be a site devoid of personal passions and personal agendas, such as Wikipedia, I just don't like it. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 18:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Looks a lot like WP:JDLI -- Frotz( talk) 00:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Very poor argument in favour of keeping. In fact a complete misunderstanding of notability requirements AusLondonder ( talk) 22:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Frotz was notified about this AfD by Neptune's Trident. Neptune also notified C.Fred, Plot Spoiler, Jlambert and myself (on November 8, 10pm). Coincidentally all of us voted Keep in a previous related AfD. ‎Neptune said "you were part of the discussion of the previous book [ed: White Girl Bleed a Lot] so I thought you might want to be involved in this discussion". There's nothing wrong with neutral notifications but if this is not a case of WP:VOTESTACK I don't know what is. I mentioned it discretely to Neptune, suggesting he also notify a couple who voted Delte in the "previous discussion", but he did not reply and in fact silently deleted my comment (which is his right), but I see it as a VOTESTACK and am abstaining from making a !vote. -- Green C 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

delete the only source that is approaching a reliable one, VICE, mentions it only in passing. Apart from that I can see no reliable coverage, just a collection of politically biased sites and/or personal ones. Unless someone can come up with some proper coverage then it is a clear delete.-- JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
- Respectfully disagree, Townhall.com, The Sean Hannity Show, FrontPage Magazine, WorldNetDaily, WSGO radio, The Anthony Cumia Show, Accuracy in Media, are all notable sources and notable media coverage. Editors may disagree with them because of not liking their politics, but that doesn't not make them notable media sources. All these sources were deemed to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, this book, while controversial in its subject matter, has more than enough notable coverage and sources. As another editor stated, this looks another case of WP:JDLI. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 19:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  - You are confusing notability and reliability. I did not write they are not notable. I wrote they are not reliable. Many things are notable but not reliable. And WP requires in depth coverage in reliable sources.-- JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    - Again, respectfully, in your opinion they are not reliable. The Sean Hannity Show has many millions of listeners, it is a professional radio show with very high ratings, I'm certainly millions of people would consider it reliable, FrontPage Magazine is an online news magazine read by millions, as is WorldNetDaily, the readership of both these news sources sees them as reliable, WGSO radio is a professional radio news outlet, that doesn't make any of these sources less reliable than say a left leaning source like The Nation or Mother Jones, many would not consider Mother Jones or The Nation reliable because of their left wing politics. If a book has enough media coverage from professional sources, like these, that makes it notable enough for Wikipedia, even if some editors who lean left politically may consider these sources not reliable in their opinion because they dislike some of the sources right of center politics. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 20:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I am afraid you are wrong about this. Whether a source is reliable is often determined by the community at WP:RSN. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not meet WP:NBOOK, failing to have at least two non-trivial reviews in reliable sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Changing my vote to delete. The consensus has pretty much spoken. I'm fine with the article being deleted ASAP. If the book were not self-published, that's one thing. But as another editor correctly pointed out, this is not a book published by WorldNetDaily as I originally thought. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 04:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. With no prejudice against recreation should additional sources (in Italian or otherwise) be made available that would push this unambiguously past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 12:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sara Lazzaro

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

The article is unsourced, and, as an unsourced BLP, I could PROD it, but decided to take it here instead, in hope someone might come with references. I was not able to find any sourced (and, yes, I speak some Italian), except for that she was awarded a prize of a rising theater star by a non-professional organization. [13] This is not sufficient for notability. Ymblanter ( talk) 23:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Pinging interested subject users Davey2010, Rms125a@hotmail.com and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per everyone above - I found a mention [14] and something about her and clothes [15] but other than that there's nothing at all on her, Clearly WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG. – Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep and allow continue improvements per her growing coverage in Italian language sources [16] for both her stage work and her work in the upcoming The Young Messiah. Looks like WP:ENT is met and WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are being pushed at. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 ( talk) 10:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Norske Talenter (series 2). Merge as required from history. Sandstein 19:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Quick (dance group)

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found wasn't even hardly useful here but as the Norwegian Wiki has a few links albeit still showing this group is only notable and known through the TV show and this could've actually be redirected there, I nominated it instead for formal comments. Pinging tagger William Avery and users interested with music AfDs Michig and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. As winners of Norway's Got Talent they would probably be considered notable. I found a few sources covering their win, e.g. [17], [18], [19]. It could really do with a Norwegian editor looking at what sources are out there. -- Michig ( talk) 08:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Norske Talenter (series 2). I see no evidence of independent notability. William Avery ( talk) 09:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge/Redirect It's a tough call, as there is some sourcing, but my searches (for English and Norwegian content) turned up nothing that was independent of the contest. I tend to agree that, even if WP:GNG is in some sense satisfied by any degree of mainstream coverage, there is really just too little to be said about this group, that can be sourced, that does not derive from the context of the talent show which they won. It may well be that they will achieve some degree of sourceable independent fame, but for the present time, a separate article does not seem necessary or appropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 10:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Beatrice Farve

AfDs for this article:

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

Individual who was the world's second oldest "verified" person (whatever verified means) and the second oldest American and second oldest African-American isn't sufficiently notable. Of the five sources here, two are non-reliable links to geneaology.com and the other two are WP:ROUTINE obituaries that don't evidence WP:N. Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete and redirect to an appropriate longevity list. The two census data search links are prohibited orginal research. One of the obits is a copyright violation posted to a blog. The article itself contains nothing of encyclopedic value. Take your pick WP:NOPAGE, lack of reliable sources, fails general notability guidelines, fails WP:BIO. David in DC ( talk) 16:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

What list? There is no list of the second any of those. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The bit bucket list. EEng ( talk) 22:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to here David in DC ( talk) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You mean the kick-the-bucket bucket? EEng ( talk) 19:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete In answer to David-in-the-capital's challenge, I pick NOPAGE. EEng ( talk) 18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Most other people who was world's second-oldest person have articles. (as an example, Mamie Eva Keith, Eunice Sanborn, Mary Josephine Ray, etc.) Many third place following people also have an article. Being the second oldest person in the world of 7 billion people is not notable? I think this article is meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. in addition, this article is created in the other languages of Wikipedia.-- Inception2010 ( talk) 11:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)— Inception2010 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

See WP:WAX (solution may be to delete the ones you mentioned) and WP:OTHERLANGS (Other language Wikipedia's are both unreliable sources and don't necessarily establish notability). Not good arguments for keeping this one. CommanderLinx ( talk) 16:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)— CommanderLinx ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Point taken. I've thus listed those pages for deletion. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I do not see evidence of the type of coverage that would satisfy the criteria for a stand-alone article under WP:N. Canadian Paul 18:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Oldest living person in Georgia as well as the 2nd oldest living person in the world at the time of her death. Several sources provide sufficent coverage. And the nominator is just playing stupid because he knows exactly what "verified" means. A person's age is "verified" if their age has been confirmed by documentation from several points in their life (from childhood until old age) that support the person's claimed age being true. 930310 ( talk) 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

What sources? CommanderLinx ( talk) 18:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Barack Obama - First African American President (The Georgia Star, 8 November 2008)

Georgia women make history (Miller County Liberal, 14 January 2009)

113-year-old woman dies in Georgia (USA Today, 21 January 2009)

930310 ( talk) 20:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete while impressive to live that long, I'm not seeing and other claim to nobility or notability. Legacypac ( talk) 10:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Routine coverage. Polequant ( talk) 14:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as another "born, lived a really long time, died" article. Longevity should not confer notability unless something notable was achieved in those years. Blackmane ( talk) 23:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep World's second-oldest human is good enough. I pick YESPAGE. -- 153.151.83.197 ( talk) 09:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment I'm not sure why so many longevity articles are being nominated for AfD. It is an accomplishment to live for such a long time and it's an area of interest to some. Just saying. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 01:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

It's been a problematic area and there's been a spotlight on these articles. Since about half (being generous) are being redirected at least, it's an indication that stand-alone articles aren't in line with current policy. I see this similar to the old fictional or Pokemon characters or the like disputes: we're moving from individual pages to general lists. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

If you see a problem, do you not think that a more sensible option would have been to have a more general discussion about what subjects do and don't deserve an article, assess the general consensus, and then move forward from there, rather than nominating countless articles for deletion? -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You mean like the conversation that was attempted before and during this 2010 ARBCOM case. Or in the five years since. Check out the case and the WOP project archives and talk pages. You'll see that the proposal you make has been attempted, numerous times, with no meeting of the minds between the wikipedians and the longevity hobbyists. As I understand it, the professional longevity folks have abandoned Wikipedia, in favor of creating their own wiki using the wikia platform. David in DC ( talk) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

That was five whole years ago. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Please review more carefully. There have been motions in the case since the first sanctions were rendered, one motion was decided earlier this year. David in DC ( talk) 22:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

What should the discussion be? "I think these articles should be redirected or deleted"/"No, I disagree" on them in a group and then the same thing individually? There's been a group of claim that WP:BIO already covers these biographies (I don't think anyone really believes that) and then another asking for a WP:BIO-specific consensus but no one actually does the work of proposing one (short of one character doing it for Tillman's AFD). It's not everyone's job to go through rounds and rounds of making up our own set of arguments to delay what we think should be done. Why don't the supporters of these biographies evaluate them and see if there's any they think are problematic? There must be some in Category:Longevity claims that even you don't think have any reliable sources that support their claims. Why don't you propose a notability criteria that actually reflects these discussions here? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete and redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. In the absence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources about the subject per WP:GNG, the default position should be to redirect these "oldest person" articles to an appropriate list, where a description of a sentence or two may be added in addition to the subject's name, date of birth, place of birth, date of death and place of death -- assuming those datapoints can be reliably verified and sourced per WP:V and WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 05:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Really? The 2nd oldest person in the world isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 6 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.-- Uietueps ( talk) 07:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
'Keep A strong claim of notability, with appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to back it up, in an article providing significant coverage of the subject. Alansohn ( talk) 20:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails SIGCOV. NOPAGE applies as there is insufficient encyclopedic material to justify a stand alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(
Talk
Contribs)} 10:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) This has gone on long enough; on reading through the !votes, it seems to me that the subject's publications allow him to (barely) pass GNG. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Paul Chamberlain

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

Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC and none of the content is supported by references (the sole reference contains no information about him). T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe delete for now as I found some links at Books and browser but nothing convincingly better. Pinging past users DreamGuy, Graeme Bartlett, Juliancolton and The-Pope and also DGG who is interested with these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak keep 4 books, not rigorously academic but very respectable, from a major Christian publisher--the most widely held is in 274 libraries. I consider this a respectable record, but it will need reviews of the books to make sure. User:DGG
Comment I was just acting on behalf of an IP 173.183.69.145 to reverse the prod, but I myself had no opinion. I assume that 173.183.69.145 want to keep this at this point too. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
weak keep There are book reviews for example at https://allforthegloryofhiskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/a-review-of-can-we-be-good-without-god-by-paul-chamberlain/ and http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec00/ and many others use it as a reference. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as prodder. We have to do something about self-published books and self-promotional wiki pages. Google search only gets pages cribbing from this one and other promotional sites like YouTube. Google News gets the wrong Paul Chamberlain for non-notable things. This person doesn't meet any of Wikipedia's policies yet, and probably never will. 15:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. DreamGuy, sorry, but your comment is a total non sequitur. Baker Books and Intervarsity Press are major publishers of Evangelical Christian books, they're not self-publishing in the least.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 18:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - per DGG's analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig ( talk) 13:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Saaya Irie

AfDs for this article:

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

I tried to edit this page and add more current information but I feel its useless as this is just a model's page. The page hasn't been updated in over a year with the only mention being she had some virus. While Saaya is 21 years old and is still a model/cosplayer does that really warrant a wikipedia article? Wouldn't we have to make a page for every instagram model then? I see this was marked for deletion quite some time ago I sadly felt only right in adding a second nomination. WhatUsername?111 ( talk) 06:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I also took out some clutter that was in the "DVD" and "book" section that seemed more like an advertisement. So that's when I began to question the articles true merits. While I'm a fan of her 2012 photobook "airen" I still don't see why she has a page. I had a previous wikipedia login before but I couldn't remember what it was. I use to edit and add refrences and citations to rap articles before. So I created another wikipedia account. WhatUsername?111 ( talk) 06:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Reasons for deletions are; 4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject), 8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth), and 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. WhatUsername?111 ( talk) 06:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Of course I see mentions on this page of her being a voice actress and having three or four singles as far as her music career goes but that didn't materialize into anything noteworthy afterwards. Also bit roles in movies don't count as I don't think a second long cameo means anything. I think that was added into the article a few years ago to pad the page and not get deleted the first time WhatUsername?111 ( talk) 07:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The nominator, which is an WP:SPA, does not present an actual argument for deletion. The article is far from an advertisement or spam, nor is the subject "not suitable for an encyclopedia". The individual clearly passes WP:ENT for having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (including sound tracks). It does, however, need serious sourcing. The Japanese version of the article has 19 sources listed. — Farix ( t | c) 11:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK 14:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK 14:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete unless better sourcing can be provided. I tend to agree that the nomination is a little lackluster, but that doesn't change the fact that there are no viable WP:Reliable sources establishing notability or confirming the various claims found in the article. Of the five references utilized in the page, only the Guardian article meets our WP:RS standards and it does not establish anything about this young woman's career, outside the fact that she is a model. In fact, the article refers to her by name only twice: "The two women – Saaya, 20, and Eri Aoki, 25 – were sent to Yoyogi park in August for the Saturday variety show on which they appear, the Nikkan Sports said." and "Saaya, who has appeared regularly in Japanese Playboy, blogged about her high fever last Wednesday before news of the dengue outbreak spread.". The piece is all of ten sentences long in total. On the whole, I am afraid I have to agree, there is not nearly enough here to meet the standards of WP:GNG or any of the other notability criteria which might be applied to Ms. Irie at this time. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Given the absence of any in-depth reliable coverage other than just name mentions, it's hard to see how this person even satisfies the basic notability criteria. No evidence of any significant film roles, either. -- DAJF ( talk) 09:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment A concerted search of Japanese sources is needed. Here are just a few of those available: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], etc. There seems to be a lot out there. Michitaro ( talk) 14:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

What is needed, regardless of language, our refs which satisfy our WP:reliable sources policy. Most of those links do not, for various reasons -- indeed, we could find plenty of like sources in English that unfortunately suffer the same shortcoming. Of those that might qualify as RS, most all of them are concerned solely with the Dengue fever outbreak, and although they might be well positioned to source the fact that a model contracted the disease at a public event for any article concerned with that outbreak, they don't go very far towards establishing Ms. Irie's notability.

However, all of that said, the Sankei Shimbun article is certainly RS, and it does go into "some" detail about the model. It's really more of a promotional piece for a particular work though, and light on background about her, so it's an ambiguous case at best. If our editors feel that one such source is sufficient to satisfy notability until the article can be better fleshed out, then so be it. But I think it would be a mistake for any editor to cast their !vote here on the assumption that there is abundant appropriate reference in Japanese sources based solely on the number of links presented and the fact that they cannot interpret the value of those Japanese sources; most of them just won't do for our needs here. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I would disagree these are not reliable sources. They are all from major Japanese newspapers, news agencies, and entertainment news sources and I and many others have not only used these sources on many Wikipedia articles, but I have used them on dozens and dozens of AfDs with no complaint. Please state your reasons for rejecting these as unreliable sources. We can argue about the specific content of the articles (I just searched for a couple minutes and put down what I came up with), but I never cite articles in an AfD that I do not think came from a reliable news agency. I might add that since I only searched for a few minutes, there are likely to be many more. Again, a concerted search is necessary. Michitaro ( talk) 18:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Should not be listed as a voice actress, as GamePlaza Haruka only lists one role under Saaya 紗綾 [37] and none under Saaya Irie. [38]. Anime News Network shows one live-action role (okay it's for Hell Girl) and one episodic appearance [39], which is also not enough to call her a voice actress. However, she does have notable acting roles as listed in ANN article. [40] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep; there are reliable sources. The Oricon sources provided by Michitaro in particular; Oricon is pretty much the equivalent in Japan of Variety or Billboard in the US. Unsurprisingly, most sources will be in the Japanese language, which makes it difficult for non-Japanese speakers to confidently edit the article. Nonetheless, the sources are there.

I note that she's a lead in a few of her film credits; but not speaking Japanese myself, it's hard for me to gauge the importance of that.

That being said, yes, some cleanup would be a good idea. I note that a lot of the ELs don't satisfy WP:EL and will probably trim some of those if no one beats me to it. TJRC ( talk) 02:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Derek Cooke

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

This is a Superintendent ranked RCMP officer, of which there are quite a few in every region. The article consists of a list of every time his name was mentioned in the news while he was doing his job. I see nothing notable about him except for Ref 2 where he was mentioned in relation to Tara Teng, a brush with greatness that conferred BLP worthy status on him. Legacypac ( talk) 00:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I was wondering what on Earth possessed him to create this. Then I read the final sentence of this nom. I cannot believe this guy (nor the fact he got off without a block). His obsession with Teng sets off very loud alarm bells in my head. This police officer just isn't notable by any reasonable standard. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete It appears that Mr Cooke has had a successful career as a police officer, but I don't think that WP:N is met as the references appear to be about cases and incidents he was involved in rather than about him per-se. Nick-D ( talk) 00:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - There coverage in all the sources is passing mentions only, not enough for WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO either. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 11:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

[1] "Maven: A Developer's Notebook". pp. 83–86.

[2] "Next Generation Java Testing". pp. 339– (subscription required)

[3] Langer, A. "Extending HtmlUnit for test automatisation of Web applications using AJAX"; Betreuer/in (nen): T. Grechenig, M. Bernhart; 183/1, 2009. (subscription required)

[4] "Refactoring HTML".

[5] "Enjoying Web Development with Tapestry".

[6] "JavaServer Faces: The Complete Reference". (subscription required)

[7] "Visualization and Communication of Pharmacometric Models With Berkeley Madonna". pp. 1-20.

[8] Laboratory Manual of Biomathematics. pp. 3-17

[9] "A System Dynamics Model For The Simulation Of A Non Multi Echelon Supply Chain: Analysis and Optimization Utilizing The Berkeley Madonna Software" pp. 503-512

[10] "Berkeley-Madonna Implementation of Ikeda's Model". pp. 582-585. (subscription required)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook