Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 October 11 October >

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 redirect to Rome City School District. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Rome Middle School

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

Another middle school without clear notability. Should be redirected to or merged with Rome City School District. Jacona ( talk) 23:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
  • Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing redirection/merger rather than deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, of course. Primary and middle schools are only deleted if they cannot be verified and are normally redirected to the school district or locality article. Take a look at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for more information on how this is handled, and visit the category "Redirects from school articles" for an indication of just how common this is. I did err, however, in not simply redirecting the article. My apologies. It's here now, so we should probably go ahead and discuss it. Jacona ( talk) 12:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hisako Kanemoto. Was going to re-list, due to the sparse commentary, but even though only two have weighed in, clearly this is something which should be redirected. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 15:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Fantastic Voyage (J-Pop album)

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

Just a list of album tracks all sourced to Rechoku (an online music retail site). No indication of any in-depth coverage, so this article unfortunately fails the basic notability criteria at WP:NALBUMS. DAJF ( talk) 22:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DAJF ( talk) 22:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

RC Plane 2

RC Plane 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced; insufficient reviews in vetted vg reliable sources to write a full article. No suitable redirect targets. czar 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I think the page shouldn't be deleted because it gives the reader basic information about the game and has refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetfighterace212 ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, but that's not much of a reason to keep it. Drmies ( talk) 03:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unsourced, and I can't find anything besides bloggy reviews--the usual web stuff for something like that. That one "reference" is not a reference at all: it's a link to the store (and I'm going to remove it). Drmies ( talk) 03:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per Drmies, there are no WP:RS to be found to support this article. Zpeopleheart ( talk) 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom, Drmies and Zpeopleheart. Searches did not turn up enough to support that it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 15:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Principle of Evil Marksmanship

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

Needs a new set of eyes, previous AfD closed as no consensus in 2006. Lack of significant, reliable, independent coverage. Take out the original research and it's little more than a definition from a dictionary with other non-notable terms [1]. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 21:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article does not have any significant secondary coverage at all, so fails WP:GNG. Beyond that it exhibits extremely strong signs of Original research by synthesis by adding footnotes to several sources as "evidence" even though those sources don't refer to this phrase, or else refer to another concept that seemed similar to this in the eyes of the editor. The only seemingly strong citations are to the "Inverse Ninja Law"...which is not what this article is about. - Markeer 00:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was , as the consensus seems clear, redirect to Fairbanks, Alaska until a better article can be achieved (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Fairbanks Police Department

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

This article fails to be notable. Also, local police departments are not encyclopedia material. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 17:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Delete is my vote, obviously. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Unless the police department has done something notable historically, that is. I wouldn't suggest cleaning away LAPD's history of racism or corruption, for example. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If not independently notable, then Merge to Fairbanks, Alaska, which presently has no mention of the city's police department. This would serve to enhance the merge target article. North America 1000 22:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with this, on both counts. A merge seems good. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 12:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I imagine there is a lot more to say about this subject and was surprised to find it so short. Merging/redirecting to the article on the city seems reasonable unless and until this can be expanded into a proper article. Beeblebrox ( talk) 13:39, 12 October 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 delete. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

FidoNet Star Wars Echo

AfDs for this article:
FidoNet Star Wars Echo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant, reliable, independent sources, I don't think that TheForce.Net can count for this. Previous AfD was kept in 2009 and tagged for sources which still seem to be none. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. While probably significant to participants and a select group of Star Wars fans, I find no evidence it achieved much attention by reliable, independent, third-party sources, per WP:GNG. TheForce.net may be somewhat independent, but I don't think they have an established reputation for editorial discretion and fact-checking per WP:NEWSORG, and in any case a single source generally isn't sufficient to establish notability. I find it gets mentioned as existing in a sentence in this book, but existence does not equal notability. The previous Afd had 3 keeps (two of them weaks), were based on "it's interesting" and "needs better citations", but none better have been found. Note that deletion from Wikipedia doesn't mean obliteration from the internet, as a nearly identical article is at Star Wars Wikia, which is where in-universe lore and fan trivia may flourish, more power to them. --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete really per Animalparty's cogent discussion. Drmies ( talk) 03:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi-Rez (rapper)

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

Article about rapper which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Searches bring up nothing to indicate notability worth inclusion at Wikipedia. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 19:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as although I haven't started looking closely, this seems obvious and with chances there is no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 09:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Christian Exodus

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

Wikipedia's policies state "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This organization is insignificant in that it lasted a very short time, ceased to exist in 2008, and there has been no coverage in reliable sources since 2007. Other than generate some news articles, it did absolutely nothing. Notability policies also state "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be...." There certainly has been no sustained coverage of this organization and it rightly can be considered a brief flash in the plan. It is not notable. JimTwiki ( talk) 18:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- As I read it, this was a small organization with big plans, from which it achieved little - the relocation of 15 families. That strikes me as a classic case of NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete User:Peterkingiron pegs it. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete until this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Broad consensus to delete--and no one even invoked BLP1E. Drmies ( talk) 03:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Anne D'Evergroote

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep It's not constructive to nominate every one of these articles for deletion. Anne D'Evergroote, like most articles you're nominating, at time of death held the title of "Oldest person ever". If she was simply some old woman at the time of her death, that'd be one of thing, but she's more than that. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
It's not constructive to recreate articles that have been redirected and deleted by consensus without adding anything new to them. There's nothing in Wikipedia's criteria that says being the oldest person in the world is notable in and of itself, thus we look for non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources, which does not appear to exist in this case. Canadian Paul 18:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
It'd be one thing for her to be oldest living person at time of death, but that's not the case here. When she died, she was the oldest person ever. No one had ever surpassed her in age, she was literally the Jeanne Calment of her time. It wasn't until later that someone was able to surpass her in age. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
To quote an IP for the first nom of Pierre Darcourt, ""I suggest - retain this article; this man was the oldest human ever, for a good number of years (based on present knowledge, which is fallible and incomplete). I propose retaining this article, at least until his age is proven incorrect - and exaggerated; or until there is proof of an earlier person older than he. As the 'oldest ever' he will be one of a very small number - possibly fewer than a dozen - Plante, Darcourt, Peters (or D'Evergroote and Boomgard), Filkins, Graham, Izumi - or Williams (and White), and Calment. Eleven in all, some not totally convincingly verified - but Darcourt was! Keep this article." DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

At the time of her death she was literally the oldest person ever, don't you think that's notable? DN-boards1 ( talk) 20:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Christ, how many of these permastubs are there? EEng ( talk) 13:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG. Age does not confer notability. Jbh Talk 20:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even the guidelines at WP:WOP state that merely getting old comes under the rules for 'single event' notability. And here, I'm not seeing a good redirect. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Gone in a minute

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

Non-notable program, no significant coverage found in reliable, third party sources per WP:GNG. --Animalparty! ( talk) 18:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No indication GNG is met. Drmies ( talk) 03:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Problem for the supporters is they don't actually present any argument other than "this person is notable". Drmies ( talk) 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Pierre Darcourt

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia.. Canadian Paul 18:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep You just revealed you're copying and pasting the same damn thing to every article's AfD. Pierre Darcourt was male, for one thing, and is most certainly notable - he is the first man to have ever reached the age of 108. For about a century he was the oldest man ever, at time of death he was oldest person ever, and he took the maximum lifespan for males from 103 (which had been set by Ferdinand Ashmall) to 108. He added 5 years to the maximum male lifespan ON HIS OWN, basically. He's most certainly notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

You're right I am, because they're all eligible for deletion based upon the same rationale. That's why almost all of these were redirected and deleted by consensus in the past. Canadian Paul 18:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
But Pierre Darcourt may be the most notable of the ones you've nominated (sans Augusta Holtz and Fannie Thomas) yet. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
And just for the record, this article has been nominated before, and last time, it was decided to be kept, yet somehow it got deleted without any consensus whatsoever. The first person to reach the age of 108 is notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
In fact, to quote an IP at the last AfD for this, "I suggest - retain this article; this man was the oldest human ever, for a good number of years (based on present knowledge, which is fallible and incomplete). I propose retaining this article, at least until his age is proven incorrect - and exaggerated; or until there is proof of an earlier person older than he. As the 'oldest ever' he will be one of a very small number - possibly fewer than a dozen - Plante, Darcourt, Peters (or D'Evergroote and Boomgard), Filkins, Graham, Izumi - or Williams (and White), and Calment. Eleven in all, some not totally convincingly verified - but Darcourt was! Keep this article." DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. And, just for the record, just because it was previously deleted does not mean that it should not be deleted now. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I've added another RS, just so you know. DN-boards1 ( talk) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Pierre Joseph Darcourt is just THE benchmark for the great longevity in first documented time. He's the first known person to turn 108, still one of oldest men ever in Belgium, and possibly the oldest person at his death. He's notable by quoting in some articles about longevity, and was known at the time of his death as the oldest on belgian centenarians' censuses. Also, one of his discoverers, Mr. Michel Poulain, disclosed that he was born and died in the town of Audregnies. Archives online supports the longevity claim, and he's validated by GRG. We can't do more reliable. -- LC-Barti ( talk) 23:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — LC-Barti ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep – per consensus at the previous afd. Oculi ( talk) 02:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Even if notable, WP:NOPAGE applies. EEng ( talk) 14:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even the guidelines at WP:WOP state that merely getting old comes under the rules for 'single event' notability. And here, I'm not seeing a good redirect. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Augustine Tessier

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep She stands out more than the other ones....She was the oldest nun ever, at time of death, was oldest French person ever recorded, etc. She's most certainly notable for holding four longevity titles at time of death - Oldest nun ever, oldest Frenchwoman ever, oldest living person, and oldest living woman. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
None of which grants her notability based on Wikipedia's criteria. Canadian Paul 18:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
How is the oldest nun ever not notable? DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Because Wikipedia does not have a criteria that declares that the oldest nun ever is automatically notable. Canadian Paul 18:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

She's no longer the oldest nun ever, it seems someone has beaten her at that: [2]. But still, there she is in GWR. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nuns should beat schoolchildren, not one another. EEng ( talk) 14:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Fannie Thomas

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep This one can't be argued. At time of death, she was LITERALLY THE OLDEST PERSON TO HAVE EVER LIVED, and her article is...well, an actual article, rather than a stub. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
None of which has any bearing on notability, per Wikipedia's criteria. Canadian Paul 18:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
It in fact does have bearing. Is Jeanne Calment notable purely for her longevity? Indeed. She's most known for being currently the oldest person ever. Before her it was Shigechiyo Izumi, before him Martha Graham, then Augusta Holtz, Mathew Beard, then Fannie Thomas, etc. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You didn't give me a chance to PROVE her notability. You shuffled the AfD along within a day of the article's creation. Thomas is one of a handful of people to have ever been the oldest person ever, she's notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The GRG list of "oldest people titleholders" from Betsy Baker to Besse Cooper (up to 2012) lists her: [3]. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The result and implications of the Koto Okubo AfD are being misrepresented and used as a tool to unfairly override long-standing consensus. The general consensus for a long time seems to be that World's oldest people and World's oldest men titleholders are notable enough for a standalone article. Koto Okubo's case was different and unusual, however: firstly, she was never the world's oldest person (only the world's oldest woman). Secondly, she received an unusually small attention from the media, hence there really wasn't much to write a biography about. For Fannie Thomas, this is a bit different. The article needs a cleanup and more sources might exist in the archives but it shouldn't be deleted. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 17:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete "She was a former suffragette,[clarification needed].[1] In 1900, she opened a millinery store in Colorado Springs.[1] In 1918 she moved to Twin Falls, Idaho, then to Los Angeles in the 1920s" is not notability material. EEng ( talk) 14:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955 NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ellen Dart

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article contains trivial information. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Joe Thomas (supercentenarian)

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The person was indeed the oldest living person at time of death. The articles of more recent WOP (world's oldest people) aren't up for grabs, so why is this different. Also, nominator has literally nominated about 30 such articles, I don't consider that very helpful. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

No I "literally" haven't. This article is different for the reasons discussed above. Canadian Paul 18:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes you have, if you read the word literally figuratively. EEng ( talk) 22:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe we could userfy this until I can provide enough RSes? DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Maybe we can concentrate on notable subjects, especially those covered in existing articles? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Or we can be constructive and let me work on making it meet notability guidelines? DN-boards1 ( talk) 03:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete EEng ( talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This article has only one reference, a "source" that has nothing in common with the reliable sources required by policy. The subject is not notable in the sense that this term is defined in Wikipedia's policies. We have a single sentence that focuses on the subject as a contestant in some mythical competition to be the oldest person on earth. He won, briefly. Hooray! Except, of course, that we then have a second sentence that is nearly inscrutable, contradicts the first sentence, and seems to violate the wiki-policy against disclaimers. Really, what is one supposed to make of this: "(Note: this is a retroactive reconstruction of history. In reality, the Joe Thomas case was not verified until July 2002 by the SSA study, and Guinness did not recuperate the "oldest living man" category until 2000)." David in DC ( talk) 18:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living men since 1973 NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Josep Armengol Jover

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep They were indeed notable, they were at time of death oldest living person. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Not according to Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Canadian Paul 18:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I have a solution. We can userfy all of these that have been nominated. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Henri Pérignon

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Person was world's oldest for a time, therefore is notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Not according to Wikipedia's notability standards. Canadian Paul 18:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's a bunch of RSes:

[5] Unfortunately, that's it. Perignon was oldest living man for....8 days. Not much time to cover him. "Oldest living man is now...Oh wait, he died." DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Zero sources. EEng ( talk) 14:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Gut feelings are a source aren't they not? 166.170.50.162 ( talk) 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Didn't he invent a terrific champagne or something? EEng ( talk) 22:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jean Teillet

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 20:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Nothing there as usual. EEng ( talk) 14:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Kensley

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep I'm sure I can find some RSes to expand the article. I think it's notable, as she was literally in Guinness World Records IIRC. I think that yes, she's notable, just as much as Jeralean Talley is. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm running out of ways to say "nonnotable". EEng ( talk) 14:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This person might belong on one or more of the many longevity related lists, but there are no references on this page. There's an assertion of recognition by Guinness, but even if true (which WP:AGF requires that we assume) a single mention by Guinness hardly constitutes notability as that term is defined in our policies. The entirety of this stub simply says that this person lived to be this very advanced age, and thereby became a "record-holder." It goes on to note other old people who held the "title" either as what hobbyists call "successors" or "predecessors". Human longevity is an encyclopedic topic. But individual long-lived people are not notable for holding mythical championships. Some long-lived people are, no doubt, notable for our purposes. Our policies identify them as subjects who have been covered in multiple, independent WP:reliable sources. Ms. Kensley carries none of the indicia of notability. David in DC ( talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955 NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Marie Bernátková

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep It actually has a LOT to do with notability, and we wouldn't be discussing, for instance, the notability of Jeralean Talley. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Talley has non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources and therefore satisfies WP:N. Bernátková does not. Canadian Paul 18:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Oldest Czechoslovakian ever, only known Czechoslovakian supercentenarian, only known Czech and only known Slovak supercentenarian. Marie is notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Again, not by Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Canadian Paul 18:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "the exact date of her death is not known; probably it was lost in turmoil following Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in August 1968. Since Czechoslovakia is now dissolved, Bernátkova is their only citizen to ever hold that title." Speculation and trivia, and one likely-non-RS. EEng ( talk) 14:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Oldness alone is not notable. This article seems to me to fall in the same category that Gertrude Stein once attributed to Oakland. There's no "there" there. David in DC ( talk) 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Czech supercentenarians NewYorkActuary ( talk) 22:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Found a better target for redirect ... Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955 NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Augusta Holtz

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines, which require widespread non-trivial coverage. Since she was only "verified" nearly three decades after her death, it's not surprising that she received little coverage, much of which came at her death, and thus any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep She was the first person verified to have reached the age of 115, so that adds to her notability. The fact she was world's oldest living person helps, too. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    Not according to Wikipedia's criterion for notability. Canadian Paul 17:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Mathew Beard is notable for reaching 114, so why wouldn't Holtz be notable for reaching 115? DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CommanderLinx ( talk) 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — CommanderLinx ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    In this case, it's more RELATEDSTUFFEXISTS. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Wait, was she the first or the second person to reach 115? If she was the second person to reach 115, does that still make her notable to you? It doesn't matter as I removed that since there's no citation for it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    She was the first person to reach 115 who was known at the time, the first person to actually reach it was not even uncovered until this year, said person died in 1977. Holtz is also the 32nd oldest person who ever lived. She's in the top 50 oldest people ever. DN-boards1 ( talk) 04:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article contains trivial information. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Augusta Holtz is the VERY FIRST person documented to have EVER reached the age of 115. Don't you think such an achievement makes her notable? Being the first person to survive to be 115? DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
This issue of notability is not for us to decide. It is a matter of what others say, as demonstrated in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That is Wiki's policy. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Another RS, her obituary: [6] DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Really? So everybody with an obituary is notable? Well, that is certainly an inclusive definition of "notable"! Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
No, I was providing an obituary as an RS. Notice that it mentions she was the oldest living human. In addition, the forum "The 110 Club" is affiliated with the Gerontology Research Group, an organization that is the primary longevity investigator. Most longevity claims are verified or debunked by them, and they and Guinness are our primary sources. The 110 Club is a forum they use to verify or debunk stuff, there's a thread discussing Augusta Holtz in there. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NOPAGE. EEng ( talk) 11:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The result and implications of the Koto Okubo AfD are being misrepresented and used as a tool to unfairly override long-standing consensus. The general consensus for a long time seems to be that World's oldest people and World's oldest men titleholders are notable enough for a standalone article. Koto Okubo's case was different and unusual, however: firstly, she was never the world's oldest person (only the world's oldest woman). Secondly, she received an unusually small attention from the media, hence there really wasn't much to write a biography about. For Augusta Holtz, this is a bit different. There are enough reliably sourced details and more sources may exist in the archives (remember she died 30 years ago). -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 17:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
WP:BURDEN of proof is on you. Can you provide these sources? Because I think keeping an article on the basis that sources "might" exist is a very poor argument. CommanderLinx ( talk) 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, I can, and I've added some them to the article. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] All from when she was alive. Ollie231213 ( talk) 23:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. All useful information about her (name, age country, oldest living person) is all conveniently located in Oldest people and other longevity articles. Unless new sources appear that demonstrate notability, she belongs on a list. CommanderLinx ( talk) 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are three "sources" cited on the page. Two are GRG pages that have already been rejected as WP:Reliable sources on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and the third is a single Associated Press obit. Isambard has it exactly right: "As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject...." The notion that "record-holders" are inherently notable is not in any way a policy-based assertion. Indeed that notion is precisely the problem in this suite of articles. David in DC ( talk) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
1. It's not correct to say that the GRG pages have been rejected as WP:Reliable sources. To my knowledge, only Table EE was deemed unreliable.
2. I've added more sources, which no one else could be bothered to look for (seemingly would rather just delete than try to improve).
3. "The notion that "record-holders" are inherently notable is not in any way a policy-based assertion." ---> There's a reason why longevity record holders are frequently reported on by the media: because being the oldest person in the world, out of several billion, is a remarkable thing. On the contrary, some people recently seem to be pushing the idea that "people can't be notable for longevity and I don't care what you say la la la", as evidenced by these AfD's. [12] [13] [14] [15] That's the real problem with these articles. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

*Keep This is comparable to nominating Misao Okawa for deletion...Oh wait, that happened. What? Okay, now I'm laughing uncontrollably. -- 2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 ( talk) 23:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet of User:DN-boards1 who already voted above. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Christopher Rage

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

Completely unsourced biography of a pornographic film actor, making no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:PORNBIO. He might be notable for having later been a director and producer of films for his own production company, but that would still depend on reliable source coverage and does not give him a "because he existed" freebie if adequate sourcing isn't there to get him past WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No WP:RS 2A02:C7D:5D30:8800:B8FF:3F79:468:521E ( talk) 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 20:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment While I'm not familiar with the Rage or gay porn, he has quite a few hits on Google books where he has been described as "very famous" 1 and a "pioneer filmmaker" 2. The article creator has done an abysmal job sourcing the articles he's done, but this one is probably notable enough to keep. Wikiuser20102011 ( talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I found some sources [16] [17] and brief mentions of him in two books [18] [19], but this actor fails WP:PORNBIO and I believe that it fails WP:GNG as well. GNG assumes notability if the person "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Are there sources? Yes. Secondary, independent, and reliable sources? Yes. But... is there significant coverage? ...significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content?" The answer to this is no. Absolutely not. The sources I found outside of IMDB were simple mentions of his name in two novels about gay pornographic films and acting; they did not significantly cover him in-depth. In fact, they didn't cover him much at all. I took a look at both of the Google Books sources provided by Wikiuser20102011, and they also mention the actor's name once and do not provide any kind of in-depth significant coverage. Therefore, I believe that this actor does not have significant coverage, and hence fails WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Frank Vickers

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

Completely unsourced biography of a pornographic film actor, which makes no particular claim of notability for anything that would pass WP:PORNBIO. The strongest claim of notability here, in actual fact, is his winning of an unnamed and likely non-notable regional bodybuilding competition in 1982 — but as weak as that claim is, an earlier speedy nomination was actually declined on that basis. But it's still not nearly strong enough to make an article permanently keepable if it's the best you can do for notability, and if the reliable source coverage is sitting at zero. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I tagged this for an A7 speedy. No credible claim for passing PORNBIO. This "cult figure" lacks substantial coverage by any reliable sources. All I could find is a passing mention in a book and an apparent advertisement in The Advocate. Winning a local/regional bodybuilding contest brings up nothing in searches. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • comment I declined the A7 speedy and I would again. A "tri-state" contest would be at least regional. Lots of statements that do not establish notability or even come close still are credible claims of significance. Someone who was active largely in a somewhat niche area in the 1980s may well have sources, but not online. On the other hand, as per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the person creating the article, or of anyone who wants it kept, to provide those sources, or at least an indication of where they might be found. DES (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • further comment Bearcat, I notice that you did not notify the article creator, User:EliteShadowHunter, of this discussion. Please include such notification as part of an AfD nomination in future. I believe that Twinkle normally does this, but if you use another tool that does not notify, or if you nominate manually, please notify manually. Also, did, you do an independent search for sources, as specified by WP:BEFORE? DES (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Bearcat's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 23:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Star Wars Action News

AfDs for this article:
Star Wars Action News (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant, reliable coverage. Previous AfD closed as no consensus, last commenter there lists unreliable sources and non-notable awards Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 16:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm seeing valuable information and the organization being used as a resource by lots of others, most notably The Washington Post. — Cirt ( talk) 09:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Barely passes WP:GNG, imho, with the references I'm seeing on Google News, but definitely passes WP:BASIC. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Cirt, Onel5969, All of the GNews sources ( [20] 24 results for "star wars action news" right now) look like insignificant coverage or otherwise can't be used to establish notability to me, starting with the WP: [21] part of the host's review of the BB-8 toy, similar parts for The Verge, Engadget, and Wired, his involvement was only for an opinion on the toy. [22] their facebook announcement that an AMC manager confirmed a Star Wars movie marathon(movie hype), I'd say it's more about Star Wars and AMC than SWAN, looks like they were at the right place at the right time, doesn't say why the manager told SWAN so it's implied that that doesn't matter, what the announcement says is what they care about, and be aware of the many similar posts of this information ( [23] [24] [25] [26]). [27] a few sentences on how Star Wars Action news is a precursor to their Now Playing Podcast. [28] it's about the husband and wife, 1st page mentions their podcast on collecting, SWAN, and also their Now Playing podcast(same sentence), 2nd page has nothing, 3rd page has a sentence on it. Two (could argue 1.5) sentences in three pages is insignificant. [29] movie hype(read the title), about the trailer, Abrams teasing, and that they found posters on SWAN FB, and then describe the posters, seems like an obligatory mention. [30] list of some of Comic Con's attendees, point of the story would be the same if they chose to list another group instead. [31] the rest seem to be sources like " Bleeding Cool News" aside from being unreliable, this one is also more about the Now Playing podcast if you read the title and SWAN is mentioned as a precursor again. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 18:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't have access to HighBeam, so I can't view the source you added. I couldn't find the whole documentary online but I found the "Celebration trailer" for it, he and is wife are on from 2:53 - 4:10 on the second video, about 15 minutes total [32] [33]. But many other people have parts in it too, and it's not like this documentary got major recognition.
Getting different search results under that term, but I'm not finding any significant, reliable coverage about Star Wars Action News. Could you link some of the sources you found here? Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Pixelkin

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

NN gaming website. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 15:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 15:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

SALTR

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

NN company lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources ( ?) (enough to build a full article). No suitable merge targets. czar 15:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While this seems to describe both company and product, I found no good results for either. Since I could not find any verifiable sources ( WP:Verifiability), barely any reliable ones ( WP:Reliable Sources), and got the sense that this did not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia ( WP:NOTADIR), I never reached the step of applying the policy for organizational notability WP:CORP (a subjective and questionable exercise in any event).-- 69.204.153.39 ( talk) 19:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - you get many hits on this name, but not for this company. A few brief mentions, not enough to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 TT me 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I haven't looked at this closely but the case seems apparently obvious with this being a new company with unlikely chances of getting enough coverage for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Typeeto

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

NN software. No reviews from major software pubs. Sourced exclusively to unreliable blogs without hallmarks of editorial quality. No worthwhile redirects. czar 15:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 15:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I ran through the requisite links to look for mentions, but I needn't have done that. The article is rather well cited, considering the field. It's often hard to judge the notability of blogs, as the nominator points out. But since LifeHacker and Product Hunt are deemed notable and such for Wikipedia, I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for WP:Verifiability and general independent editorial content. There's then a debate over what might make this notable, but I think it just hits that bar for that. -- 69.204.153.39 ( talk) 20:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia deletion policy requires pursuing diligent alternatives to deletion before an AfD request can be made. This is POLICY and is not optional. This cart is therefore before the horse. Checkingfax ( talk) 03:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
What alternative are you suggesting that was neglected? And what is your actual argument for keeping it? There isn't any good place to redirect it. czar 12:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Alternatives to deletion:

Main page: [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]]
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles.

Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.

A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. Tags however are not intended as permanent solution; they are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems. Tags are listed here. Some of the more common ones include:

{{cleanup}} for poor writing
{{expert-subject}} for articles needing expert attention
{{notenglish}} for articles written in a foreign language
{{npov}} for bias
{{stub}} for a short article
{{refimprove}} for lack of verifiability
{{merge}} for a small article that could be merged into a larger one
Cheers! ... Checkingfax ( Talk ) 10:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
That doesn't answer my question. czar 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". ... Checkingfax ( Talk ) 14:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I would like to mention that LifeHacker and Product Hunt are notable and reliable sources. As well as iFun.de and AppleSfera (I added this source today to the article) are well known sources in German and Spanish correspondingly. If this is still not enough, please let me know how can I improve the article more. Thanks DashaG11 ( talk) 07:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • To review those two sources being referenced: This is the LifeHacker—it's fine but it's a paragraph. But the Product Hunt page doesn't even have any official text... so there's nothing to use as a source apart from user-submitted (unreliable) information. (A source is reliable not because it has a WP page but because it has editorial control.) The foreign language posts, if even reliable, are repackaged press releases with no commentary or "review". I'd also like to remind anyone participating in AfD that if they have a potential affiliation or conflict of interest with the subject they're writing about, they should be disclosing as much on the article's talk page. czar 12:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • CNET good? It's not longform, but with enough mining from that and the Lifehacker source the article could get developed enough for a weak keep. Another from Technology Personalized, which seems to have an established staff. 23W 16:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ 23W, CNET would be good, but it's a duplicate of the Lifehacker source (and says so). And I don't think Technology Personalized is reliable, despite the peacocking on their staff page. czar 14:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep likely and I was about to close it as such but I'll simply comment for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Cool Math

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It didn't have any in-depth hits in several database and custom Google searches. Are there any secondary source articles that discuss the site at all? There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't find anything beyond mentions in reliable sources. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Probably. I consider myself new because I rarely edit Wikipedia, but I see the problem with my article. I though it might be safe because of Cool Math Game's Alexa rank, but I guess not. The Amazing Matt ( talk) 15:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm withholding my decision for the moment. Because of the commonality of the name, the searches are a bit onerous. However, in the first several pages of News I've seen a couple of hits, several by a site called KpopStarz (including the one already in the article), but also this mention, Newsday, and STLtoday.com. I think if the article creator can do some research, they might find enough to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. And that search was simply on the main "Cool Math" moniker. Onel5969 TT me 14:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • FYI, KpopStarz isn't a reliable source, they run stories on all sorts of crap. Sam Walton ( talk) 14:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Government Swedish Pakistani College of Technology, Gujrat

Government Swedish Pakistani College of Technology, Gujrat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a hoax. No reliable sources. Only sources are personal blogs and other similar sites. Nothing reliable shows up in Google. older ≠ wiser 14:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Any Reason why this is nominated???? Anjana Larka Talk! 13:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Look at the sources online, it does appear to exist (not a hoax). However, coverage in reliable sources is scarce from what I could dig up. Someone more familiar with the subject may be able to find more, but in it's current state I would recommend deletion. Jujutacular ( talk) 05:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Lazos de amor (2016 telenovela)

Lazos de amor (2016 telenovela) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is too early to make this article. Because still not confirmed if Angelique Boyer and Sebastián Rulli will be the protagonist. He has not even begun production of the telenovela, much less has confirmed the cast and evidence search the cast have not started, for more than 20 or 30 that have references to talk about this project. It is not known if performed or not. In 2013, it was confirmed that a remake of the telenovela " Simplemente María" would be done, but it was not until 2015 that confirmed and will take place. Besides Michelle Renaud also you want to be the star of this telenovela. I therefore ask that the article be deleted until at least begin production of the telenovela and there is a release date or promotional. Philip J Fry (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep.The article's references say otherwise, Michelle Renaud was not cast as the lead but he was given a role in Pasión y poder.So I don't get what the nominator is talking about.As the references state clearly production is set to happen in October or November since it will be a great production.Moreover,the telenovela is creating a buzz already.More importantly pages like La Tempestad were created months before it premiered so I why will this be out of the norm?Additionally the reasons given are based on rumours since citation was not given to support the argument given by the nominator and most importantly a page is always developed from a single word. Nyanchoka : talk to me 21:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
In an interview Angelique Boyer said clearly that nothing is yet confirmed, that if called to star in the telenovela, but nothing is confirmed yet. And José Alberto Castro recently said "Pasión y poder" ends in April 2016. So Michelle Renaud could do the casting for the telenovela. In addition several of the references are from months ago, when this telenovela was announced. It is best to wait at least begin searching cast. Because if not then we would have to create, "La usurpadora (2016 telenovela)" which supposedly will be starring Anahí. The article seems irrelevant now. Current references prove nothing, plus it is not known whether the title will definitov "Lazos de amor" or changed. Better to wait, telenovelas have already been confirmed and then not performed before. So step with " Madre Sustituta" and then was canceled. Even with regard to "Madre Sustituta" they had thousands of reliable sources that ensured that the telenovela would be done, but then he never did. So it's best to wait to create "Lazos de amor (2016 telenovela)".-- Philip J Fry (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The references I used are recent. If cancelled,which I doubt,the page may be deleted.Pages like Doña Bárbara, the article has been in its same state since earlier this year.So I don't get what Philip J Fry is talking about.It's just a matter of simple understanding.Most of the pages in "Category:Upcoming television series" most of the articles are in the same state as this one.Examples are; The Ranch (TV series), Mysticons (planned to premiere in 2017), Thirteen (TV series), Of Kings and Prophets and The One Percent (TV series),which are perfect examples of what I stated.Honestly this article meets WP:GNG. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 22:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm not going to use this to discuss with you. You do not want to understand anything, and I will not continue wasting my time to explain anything. Other users decide if the article remains or not. For I see that you're going to start taking a thousand things that have nothing to do here.-- Philip J Fry (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nominator,You seem to forget anyone has his /her own opinion over here so its not a matter of making me understand.What I understand is what I think is write.Regrettably arguing with you has never been fun.So remain civil in such discussions.Irrelevance comes with your arguments.So I leave till,a comment has been dropped by any other user. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 23:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • ”'Delete:”' Only I confirmed that the telenovela would be done, but still has not decided whether Angelique Boyer and Sebastián Rulli will be the protagonists. Besides this falls WP:CRYSTAL BALL. May be thousands of references that talk about the same, but that proves nothing. -- Elreysintrono ( talk) 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Draft and userfy for now as I would say keep because these telenovelas almost always happen. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This is an STUB, it doesn't needs to be here until something is really confirmed about the telenovela, It is too early to say that Sebastián Rulli and Angelique Boyer are the stars of this telenovelas. It's best to delete it and in one of the news the supossed "actress" says that the telenovela isn't confirmed, so delete this is an innecessary STUB. AND A COMMENT, this fight between Nyanchoka and Phillip J. Fry is silly, I think admin should fix that because I got a notice that I was a sockpuppet and that is FAKE. MEOW ElGatoSaez ( talk) 00:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 05:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Nadelakandy

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

Not sure The Amazing Spiderman ( talk) 17:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Move to DRAFT space. This article does not come close to meeting the standards for writing and sourcing. It also is unclear as to how much of it is original research (and, in this regard, note that the lengthy external link that had been deleted was to a Google collection of photographs, and not to any written material). Then again, maybe this really is a sourcble part of the history of Sri Lanka. Moving it into Draft space will give the article's creator time to improve the article. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 22:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the article was tagged for possible hoax, no refs, and general problems, and the tags were removed by the creator/editor within minutes. I'm guessing that this is someone who is unfamiliar with WP editing practices and generally with how things work. I'll !vote move to draft, or delete with the caveat that the creator has to agree to work through AfC to learn more about WP and editing. LaMona ( talk) 23:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there are no references supplied that come close to verifying any of the information provided in the article. I have tried searching for any information remotely related to the subject and am unable to find anything. In its current form the article should be deleted. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Draft and userfy if this can happen as I simply see no improvement for this and if that can happen later, we can see if it is acceptable for mainspace then. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Almost completely made up stuff aimed at ethnic glorification. Unable to find any sources. utcursch | talk 03:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Don't see the need to userfy what looks like the usual clan stuff/OR/glorification. Drmies ( talk) 03:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Joey Camen

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

Seems to fall short of WP:NACTOR (minor, often unnamed roles in things of note, larger roles in less notable things.) Name can be found in databases (the "New York Times" source cited is their reuse of the All Movie Guide database and places that list cast, but the biggest mention I can find is a one-sentence call-out in a Variety review. The film festival award listed is the lowest-level award given at a festival that gives an award to every film they show. No reliable source is included supporting other boastful claims. Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Let this page stay. He's a good voice actor and has done a lot of voices including the ones in the Skylanders franchise. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 17:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Article needs more references yet it has enough as is for it to remain on Wikipedia. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 18:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It's usually fairly difficult to source VA articles since they rarely get the coverage that non-voice actors would get for the same type of roles, so in these cases we have to look at their filmography to really tell what they've done. From what I can see, it looks like this actor has voiced the same two characters for multiple games in the Sam & Max series. He's also voiced a character for six episodes for Eureka Seven, so there's that as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, he did a named character in a foreign language dub of Eureka Seven, but that's one of 41 named characters listed in our article, and as you note, just 6 episodes out of 50. I have not seen the series, so I cannot tell you if the character is significant. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm seeing a good deal of coverage here, certainly plenty of documentation of his roles, and positive mention in noteworthy publication Variety. — Cirt ( talk) 10:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Journalist Association for Peace

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

No coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. This organization claims to be only five months old. I can find nothing other than its web site to even verify existence much less notability. Jbh Talk 17:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I'm not seeing any obvious improvement here per my searches but feel free to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Scott Dawson. Drmies ( talk) 03:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Strength to Stand Conference

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

No established notability, previously deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Strength to Stand Conferences RF23 ( talk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Scott Dawson as the two are best known for each other and I found no convincingly good coverage. Pinging paat commenters Peterkingiron and Tom Morris. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the ping, SwisterTwister. Concur: redirect to Scott Dawson. I'm dubious as to Mr. Dawson's notability too ( al.com describe him as "known for organizing crusades at minor league baseball parks and school football stadiums", which doesn't exactly make him seem like a big fish in the rather large pond of American evangelical leaders), but that's a separate issue. His religious evangelism events can more than adequately covered on the article about him. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • concur with redirect Such coverage [34] as I could find is really minor. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, I can't find any sourcing and don't see any reason to redirect to another article when it looks like that one isn't notable either.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 03:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:46, 2 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! 16:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 16:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Alfie Stewart

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

Fails at WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Notability has not been established within the article, plus there is no significant coverage in reliable source. A Borderline speedy case but it's better to discuss. Hitro talk 21:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as there is unsurprisingly no coverage about him with only a few roles, none of them outstanding or otherwise suggesting noticeable attention. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While this actor has picked up some popularity, that's not the same thing as notability. I feel like the article should just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 14:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Express Raja

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

No indication of significance. Olowe2011 Talk 20:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as this exists per Need and browser links but the most recent coverage is May and would likely be best restarted when better. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: "Express Raja" Sharwanand "Merlapaka Gandhi" Surabi "UV Creations"

*Delete temporarily. Just a touch TOO SOON. While filming has begun it is still a bit short of meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3). No great loss to lose the very short stub and a far better and more comprehensive article can be allowed to be recreated in a just a few weeks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC) struck per my argument below. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Too soon to tell. The director does not have an article--the link goes merely to one of his films. Entering prinicpal photography should only justify a new movie when there is some real possibility that it will be notable once released. DGG ( talk ) 11:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Well DGG, that a director does not have an article (and this fellow really should and will as my next project) simply means we do not have a place to which to redirect or merge. And a user's prediction of possible failure is as crystal as a user's prediction of possible success. What is clarified for editors in WP:NFF is an acknowledgement of topic notability determinable through findable coverage, used or not... and that in either failure OR success, a film topic's notability is dependent on media coverage of the film's overall production. Just sayin'. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
aas always, I defer to your expertise in this areas--I was judging as best i could from the material as it was presented DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kiva Kahl

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

no established notability RF23 ( talk) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 16:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Melanie Liburd

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

Minor actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Yes and there's simply no better improvement here at least for general notability and better sourcing, not to mention there's also no obviously good move target. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Abdulkadir Ali

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

WP:BLP, resting on one single news article and a primary source on his own website, of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for president of a country — but out of the 21 other candidates he ran against in that election, the only three who have articles are the winner, his predecessor whom he ousted, and one person who previously held another notable political office. Non-winning candidates do not get articles on that basis alone, but must be demonstrably notable for something else independent of their candidacy — but nothing like that has been demonstrated or sourced here. Delete unless enough reliable source coverage can be piled onto his past presidency of the Somali American Chamber of Commerce to get him over WP:GNG for that. Bearcat ( talk) 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. At Somali presidential election, 2012#Results, there is someone indicated as coming in 4th place in the election (which was an indirect election, where the voters were the members of parliament) under the name Abdiqadir Osoble Ali. I can understand that "Abdulkadir" could be a variant of "Abdiqadir", but if they are the same person, the spelling of his name should be standardized. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now unless it can actually be improved as although I found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam, there wasn't much and the name mentioned above seems like someone else considering the different middle name. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jack Andrew Cook

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

WP:BLP of an actor and film director, which makes no substantive claim of notability for either endeavour under the relevant sections of WP:CREATIVE, and which is referenced exclusively to primary and unreliable sources with not a shred of actual media coverage shown. Even his IMDb profile credits him exclusively with short films and unnamed minor characters, with no evidence of noteworthy roles — and a person does not get a Wikipedia inclusion freebie just because they're on IMDb, either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually achieves something that actually gets him over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Bearcat ( talk) 14:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Price Overide

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

No references, and no claims to notability. This is more of an WP:Essay So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 16:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I suppose as this looks better now. Delete as Books and browser found a few links but I'm not seen ng anything for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Alt:
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: Obviously a typo in the article title here, should be Price override. I could honestly not make heads or tails of the /Theft/ section, so I have stubbed it to a one-liner. The term is new to me, but appears to be common in accounting and economics. I have slightly WP:OVERCITEd to show that. Pinging ( TheGreatWikiLord— Spinningspark— SwisterTwister) -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:09, 3 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! 14:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I can live with that as a stub. If it stays like that I would favour moving to the corrected spelling. Spinning Spark 14:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, naturally move it to Price override. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and move to Price override per my above comments: the term is common and is easily referenced with reliable sources found to verify notability. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Most stubs start out as just a definition, or little more than that. The question for AfD is whether or not it is capable of being expanded into a decent article from reliable sources. In my opinion it is; this book and this one discuss it at length. One can even find book sources that discuss the theft issue associated with price overrides [35] [36]. Spinning Spark 13:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Nom's statement "i don't think that this is an article worth of encyclopedic inclusion." is purely personal point-of-view that should be avoided, cf. WP:BELONG. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • it may be my lack of imagination, but I am not seeing how this can ever expand to be an article worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The fact that it is discussed in a textbook is not criteria enough for inclusion. Suppose you presented 2 news articles from ?WSJ saying that price override led to a ?2.1% decrease in anticipated revenue, that would be different story. for me textbook alone is not enough is this case. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 14:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • On the contrary, textbooks are one of the most acceptable sources for establishing notability of a subject. According to our reliable sources guideline "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." You appear not to have heard that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, but in any case, the phrase is coming up in gnews items if you care to look. Spinning Spark 15:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article but keep information. I never said Wikipedia is news. News was just an example of what would have established notability. Both of the examples show that "price overrides" was mentioned once in each book. I do not think that this coverage is in depth enough to establish notability. I am not convinced that this deserves an article in an encyclopedia. I am, however, in favor of adding this information to Shrinkage_(accounting). I believe that would be more encyclopedic than its own article. Thank you. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Nom missed the spelling error. That and their subsequent comments begs the question: what kind of searches were performed prior to nomination? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am confused that you linked to Wikipedia:Notability (events) before, it has no bearing in this case, and now you link to Wikipedia:No personal attacks saying you think that notability has not been established? The lack of answer to my question "what kind of searches were performed prior to nomination" leaves me with the impression that no due diligence was performed. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 22:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • we are moving off topic. I have edited my previous comment. I have nothing further to say. Please try to establish the notability of the topic as oppose to questioning what I am or am not capable of. Thank you. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 01:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Notability has been established and no successful arguments for deletion have been advanced for this apparently common term in accounting and economics.
Cite journal
  • Perry, William E. (2010). "Concurrent EDP Auditnig an Early Warning Scheme". EDPACS. 1 (8): 1–7. doi: 10.1080/07366987409450112. ISSN  0736-6981.
  • Perez, Darrin (2015). "What Comes Next": 187–215. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4842-1040-6_10. {{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= ( help)
  • Anitsal, Ismet; Schumann, David (2007). "Toward a Conceptualization of Customer Productivity: The Customer's Perspective on Transforming Customer Labor into Customer Outcomes Using Technology-Based Self-Service Options". The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 15 (4): 349–363. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679150405. ISSN  1069-6679.
  • and mentioned in many more
Cite news
Cite book
Asking if the mandatory WP:BEFORE was performed in this case is neither irrelevant to the nomination nor is it a personal attack. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Adesola Kazeem Adeduntan

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

Notability. This is a declined speedy on the grounds that a borderline claim of significance has been made; however most of the references are essentially reports about the bank he works for. In other words, just a man doing his job. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as although I found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Wikicology. Based on his position in one of Africa's largest banks, and the primary sources about him, he arguably passes WP:GNG. I'd like to see more secondary sources, but bankers in developing nations tend to be camera-shy for security reasons. Bearian ( talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Towns

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

Fails notability. Has not made an active roster, not currently on an NFL roster Edday1051 ( talk) 09:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 2 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! 08:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Caleb Holley

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

Fails notability. Has not made an active roster, not currently on an NFL roster Edday1051 ( talk) 09:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I see nothing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:26, 2 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! 08:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is in bad shape, but the sources referenced above are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Hopefully, someone (any East Central fans out there?) can add the sources and adopt this article for improvement. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Poetry Speaks Expanded

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

An anthology is not notable because it publishes notable poets; all anthologies do that by their very nature. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 2 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! 08:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NBOOK. There are reviews on Booklist, PW, (but not Kirkus), but these do not establish notability, IMO, they are just routine. LaMona ( talk) 00:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK as there are multiple reviews ie. [37] - The Morning News - " If you are looking for an overview and primer to the variegated world of poetry, this book appears to be an accessible and useful guide." , [38] - The Wilson Quarterly - "Though the recordings have long been accessible to the specialist, this is the first collection to make them widely available, and the first to offer such abundant contextual material." and "Poetry Speaks founders only on the issue of audience", [39] - Publishers Weekly - "This second edition of the popular anthology is an accessible introduction to 20th century poetry on the page and in the air. ... this book may convince readers that well-chosen words gain vitality when heard aloud" and "Reluctant poetry readers may find themselves drawn to the printed page by the spoken work, and poetry fans are likely to find much to love here.", [40] - Buffalo & Erie County Public Library lists Booklist ("Book and CDs work beautifully together, kindling deeper appreciation for the transmuting power of poetry") and School Library Journal ("The inviting layout and scattering of primary-source material (gems include a handwritten poem on a paper plate by Etheridge Knight and an edited draft of W. H. Auden's "September 1, 1939"), and the invaluable effect of poems read by their creators remain the collection's hallmarks.") reviews, [41] - HighBeam Research lists 5 reviews (some may be deemed trivial) including Knight Ridder Tribune ("It's often said that poetry, at its heart, is a spoken form, with those marks on the page being only a blueprint for what is really performance art. Poetry Speaks underscores that view with more than three hours of oratory, some of which is no less than spine-tingling."), Insight on the News ("Heaney is one of 42 contemporary poets who introduce 42 of their deceased colleagues in this ambitious collection"), The Herald News ("The international draw to this best seller isn't just the words by famous poets within the pages, but also the 3 CDs that reveal the poet's voices as they read their own work."). Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This book easily meets the first criterion of WP:NBOOK. There are several non-trivial reviews: [42] [43] [44] [45]. There are also many rave quotes by very notable news services listed here. The requirement is simply that there be two non-trivial, independent reviews by reliable sources, and the examples listed above plainly show that the subject qualifies. There is no question that this book is notable. -- Biblio worm 17:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 19:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kevin Williamson (actor)

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

Questionably notable and although I mostly found results for the other Kevin Williamson, I found some here and I also even found another Kevin Williamson actor here (this other one is American and obviously non-notable with only one film in 2007.) Thus with hardly any edits since starting in October 2006 and no other obvious signs of work and therefore improvement to the article, there's nothing to suggest keeping this article. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, I'm not seeing a particularly strong claim to notability here, either. An actor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he exists — rather, he must be reliably sourceable as having passed one or more of the specific criteria listed at WP:NACTOR. But that hasn't been shown here. In addition, nothing else in articlespace links to him except the disambiguation page for people named Kevin Williamson — so while it is occasionally possible that a person actually does satisfy a notability criterion on some detail that somehow got overlooked in the writing of the article, I'm not seeing any evidence that he falls into that camp. Delete per nom. Bearcat ( talk) 17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. actor active only locally, with no encyclopedic notability DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing in searches turned up anything to see they pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 19:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

R.K. Swamy

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

This current article simply never specifies how he's explicitly notable aside from founding that company and he's not mentioned at another article so I'm not sure if he and the company should be briefly mentioned at the BBDO Worldwide article. The best my searches found was this and this but I would like comments to see what is best for this barely changed article from October 2008. Notifying the only seemingly interested user Nsk92. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've added more than sufficient sources to show notability and to cover all existing content. I'll go back to clean up and inline source later. — Spaceman Spiff 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 2 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! 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep This squeaks by notability mainly because of the coverage in obituaries. I have this terrible feeling that if he were alive we'd know much less about him. LaMona ( talk) 00:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Joe Don Duncan

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 2 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! 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable Division II college football Little All-America selection. Although I believe this is a much closer call than Cbl62 does -- we should not even be discussing coverage by SBNation/"Mile High Report" and the university's student media for purposes of establishing notability -- I count at least four articles in independent, reliable media that constitute significant coverage of the subject's college career and All-America honors linked by Cbl above. I am less than impressed with the bloggy one-paragraph mentions in the hometown newspaper of the university, and, as I mentioned in another pending AfD, I am concerned and conflicted by articles about former CFB players whose "technical" satisfaction of GNG is based entirely on sports column coverage of their failed attempts to make a regular season NFL roster. This latter issue is problematic and has led to a growing cluster of perma-stubs about which we can only say that that the subject played for CFB Team X, and he was signed as a free agent and cut by NFL Team Y without ever having played a down in a pro game. I'm not sure what the encyclopedic content, if any, is in such articles, and we really need to find a better way of analyzing of such cases. Fortunately, that problem is not at issue in the case of Joe Don Duncan. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kannada American

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

I can find very little coverage of this linguistic group in independent, reliable sources. The article title appears to be a neologism, but searching for alternative terms does not reveal enough coverage to establish notability either. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete likely as no improvement has happened which is not surprising with these articles and my searches also found nothing good so if this can be restarted better, that may be better. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Duke of Edinburgh Awards. Drmies ( talk) 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The Duke of Edinburgh Awards

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

Article was PRODded by another editor but this was opposed. This article is essentially just an extended plot summary of a television episode with no encyclopaedic treatment of the subject, and therefore fails WP:PLOT. Notability has not been established - there is a single, primary-source reference in the article that is used only to support the running time. A requested move discussion on the article's talk page recommends moving the article (this is neither necessary or appropriate) and subsequently redirecting the article to Duke of Edinburgh Awards. Redirection might be an appropriate outcome of this discussion as an alternative to deletion. AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • I see a wider issue here. The article on The Inbetweeners shows that all the episodes of series 1 and 2 and some of the episodes of series 3 have their own articles and they are all as bad as this one. Furthermore they are all listed in List of The Inbetweeners episodes where the information on each episode is almost the same as the individual articles. They should all be redirects to that list article, but that needs a new discussion and I do not have time. So I propose here a redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes and then we can look at the rest. -- Bduke (Discussion) 11:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Several of those have notable topics with names where the episode title is a viable redirect for. All of those should be deleted as replicating the list's material, and those that are viable search terms of other topics should redirect to those other topics (and not to the episode list). The episode list can be noted as a hatnote at the alternative topics. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Notability not established, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED either which the person who removed the PROD claims that it inherited the notability of the TV show overall. After deletion, this should redirect to Duke of Edinburgh's Award. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mrs. FIXIT

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

Seemingly open and shut case with my best searches here, here, here and here suggest no further signs of notability and improvement with this easily being speedy and PROD material. Pinging past user WikiDan61. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Tagged for notability 6 years ago, with no signs of improvement. My searches turn up no better than Swister's. Lots of content by her, but nothing significant and independent about her. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 10:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as per nom and WikiDan61. Clearly not notable, as searches turned up no in-depth coverage from independent sources. Onel5969 TT me 15:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. not notable, and promotional. Almost a G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgie Aldous

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

That was me. I believe Wikipedia has a policy regarding notability. And a kid with some 15k subscribers and less than 5k likes on Facebook at the moment is hardly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This sets a dangerous precedent, because if this kid can have a Wikipedia page, why not create one for every single person with a fashion blog and 15 thousand subscribers on YouTube? And just like that, you'll have hundreds, if not thousands of articles on completely unimportant people, because everyone has 15 thousand subscribers on YouTube - since even channels with 6 figures in the subscriber area are considered small, 15k can be seen as nothing.

The sources are terrible and can't even be taken seriously. A gay person is not notable (meaning to the general public) if he only appeared on sites like "The Gay" or "Pink News", atrocious blogs like "Sugarscape" (who the hell puts these as serious sources...) and some small local news site like "Eastern Daily Press". Are you kidding? You might as well just throw a quick blog together in Wordpress, write an article youself and use it a a source. And if you're going to write about being "known worldwide", you better have some world class sources, and not just "b-b-but his fans are from different parts of the world!" to back you up.

This article has everything a Wikipedia article should NOT have, everything was done wrong, and should go away. This makes me believe the whole thing is an attempt at self-promotion either by the YouTuber himself, or his fans.

84.42.224.20 ( talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Neutrally completes nomination for 84.42.224.20 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), rationale taken from Talk:Georgie Aldous before cleared by 86.16.65.102 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 11:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgie Aldous is a worldwide known Blogger, Anti-Bullying Ambassador and YouTuber shown from his YouTube statistics. Sugarscape and ThePinkNews are reliable news sources as they are viewed by thousands monthly. Georgie rose to fame from his VIRAL YouTube Video and highly popular Coming Out Video, if someone gets popular through a Coming Out video no wonder it was written about in the news, the people that want this page taken down must be, homophobic? People must be searching who he is because this page is the top result for 'Georgie Aldous' and it used to be bottom! It has a lot of useful information on it, he's up for 3 YouTube related awards which I didn't know of until reading this article. Being an LGBT YouTuber and Ambassador is a defining characteristic, just like the Gay politicians or Gay writers category on here! I say it should stay, it helps people know more about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.65.102 ( talk) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete At best, this is too soon. The article does not have any mainstream or major sources. The article lists awards that he has been nominated for in 2015, but has not yet won. He was "newtuber of the week" at one site in June of 2015 - only four months ago. This needs much more time and more reliable source recognition. LaMona ( talk) 21:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There really aren't many sources on him and to be quite frank he's not that popular on YouTube. There are many YouTubers with much larger followings and even more press than he does without articles currently. Maybe in a while he will be more notable, but for now he is simply not. Andise1 ( talk) 07:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep--with the caveat that the article should be moved per consensus. Drmies ( talk) 03:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgia Southern–Georgia State football rivalry

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

This AfD is a forehead slapper, and does not require any in-depth analysis under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, because COMMON SENSE suggests that there can be no meaningful rivalry between two universities or teams after exactly ONE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME between them. DELETE with extreme prejudice. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ordinarily, I would agree with Dirtlawyer, as, on the surface, it would appear that two teams that have played so few match-ups on the football field couldn't possibly be rivals. But, a closer examination of the situation reveals a different story, as this one really is the proverbial "exception that proves the rule." These two schools, fanbases, and teams absolutely DESPISE each other, going back to 1990, when Georgia Southern College was renamed Georgia Southern University, and immediately came into conflict with Georgia State over which school would have the right to bear the coveted "GSU" moniker, with Georgia State's seniority coming out on top. So why have the two teams hardly ever played each other? Well, primarily because Georgia State didn't field a football team before 2010. Since then, Georgia State has gone FBS, jumping to the Sun Belt Conference in 2013, which then prompted Georgia Southern to move to the Sun Belt in 2014 (I'm not kidding, literally no one at Georgia Southern had any desire to move to FBS at all, they were perfectly happy in FCS, until Georgia State announced that they would be moving up. That lit a huge fire under the folks in Statesboro, that they had to go FBS to keep up with Atlanta). So, this series is now a conference series, at long last, and will be played annually for the foreseeable future. Not to mention that there will now be a trophy up for competition between these two schools, starting with the upcoming season (see here). I would suggest that this situation is something like Giants–Jets rivalry, where the two teams in question have hardly ever played each other (12 all-time meetings in 45 years), yet they are "rivals" primarily for off the field reasons. So, what to do with this article? Well, for starters, I would recommend moving it to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry, which would allow expansion of the article to include other sports besides just football (basketball, baseball, etc.), as these two schools actually have more of an on-field history together in those other sports then they do on the gridiron. But, bottom line, is there a rivalry between these two schools? As someone who actually follows and is familiar with Sun Belt Conference football, I can answer unequivocally, yes, absolutely there is. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 12:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Ejgreen77: Assuming for the sake of argument everything you say above is 100% true and correct, this "rivalry" still fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If this rivalry is real, as you strongly believe that it is, then it should be incorporated into the Georgia State Panthers football and Georgia Southern Eagles football articles. As a comment on the notability of the more generalized rivalry between these two "GSU" Georgia state universities, I also note that " Modern Day Hate," an article about the rivalry between the two universities, was speedily deleted pursuant to WP:A11 as an obviously newly coined name. None of Georgia State Panthers football, Georgia Southern Eagles nor Georgia Southern Eagles football so much as mentions this "rivalry," and I would suggest that is where present efforts should be focused unless and until this "rivalry" sufficiently matures to satisfy the GNG criteria with significant coverage in multiple outlets of the mainstream media. Wikipedia does not cover topics as stand-alone articles unless they are notable per GNG or other applicable specific notability guideline(s). Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this rivalry (if it exists at all) has nothing to do with football. The statement that the students at the two schools hate each other may be notable, but making it about a football game that has been played once and scheduled for a second game does not make it a rivalry. I have no objection to an article about the alleged basketball rivalry or general student discourse that may exist.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Paulmcdonald: I assume that you would have no problem with the addition of new "GSU vs. GSU" rivalry content in the existing Georgia State Panthers and Georgia Southern Eagles articles, correct? Notability of the rivalry topic is not required for inclusion of rivalry content in the parent sports program and football team articles. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
But, then, instead of simply maintaining, improving, and updating this article, we'll have to create and maintain a similar level of content at two different pages, namely Georgia Southern Eagles football and Georgia State Panthers football, creating twice as much maintenance & updating work as if this page is simply kept, retitled, and expanded. Creating more unnecessary busywork is never a good thing, IMHO. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 14:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
EJ, every truly notable CFB rivalry should be and usually is covered in the main team articles, regardless of whether there is a stand-alone rivalry article. See, e.g., Florida Gators football#Rivalries and Florida–Georgia football rivalry. More examples provided on request. Efficiency is not the issue here; notability is. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)) reply
Rivalry information could be included there if editors deem it worthy. Right now it's about the notability of this particular article, and it just isn't there.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I need to ponder this one a bit further, it's a bit of an odd duck. The lack of history weighs on the 'delete' side. But there is more coverage of this series as a rivalry than we typically see. This includes substantial coverage, focusing on the rivalry, in major media outlets like this and this, both from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (perhaps the most respected media outlet in the Southern United States) and this from the USA Today and Associated Press. Since the rivalry is not limited to football, but is a broader rivalry between the two schools and alumni bases, one possible solution is to move this to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry and expand the coverage to basketball (see this regarding basketball rivalry), volleyball (see this regarding volleyball rivalry), etc. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Living in Atlanta for 14 of the past 21 years, we are familiar withe AJC. One of the AJC "articles" linked above is not a news article at all, but an online blog that does not appear in the actual newspaper and is not editorially reviewed by the AJC editorial staff. The content of the actual AJC news article calls into question the entire idea of an instant rivalry in football between State and Southern, including sober commentary from both of the coaches about it possibly becoming a true rivalry in the future. Likewise, the USA Today article quotes one of the coaches as saying "Rivalries are things that are established over years and history. . . . So this is the start of one because it's natural, we're in the same conference and the same state. Hopefully in years to come they'll be talking about what a great rivalry it is." The text of neither article supports the existence of a meaningful rivalry in the present. At present, this is very much another manufactured rivalry for marketing purposes. Rivalries are not simply "declared"; they evolve naturally as a result of geographical proximity, shared traditions, common and opposite characteristics of student bodies, politics, competitive series, and sometimes because of unfortunate events on and off the field. The perspective of the State and Southern coaches in these two articles reflects that reality. FYI, Altanta.Suntimes.com is a national content aggregation site of the Chicago Sun Times; it is not an Atlanta-based news medium, and the source of much its content is either unclear or clearly outsourced. In the case of the volleyball rivalry article, the source is a press release of the Georgia State University athletic department website to which the blurb on Atlanta.Suntimes.com directly links. When we distill it down, we have two legitimate news articles (one each from AJC and USA Today), both of which quote the football coaches as soberly saying that it takes time to build a rivalry. There is a third article, from the AJC, discussing last spring's end-of-season meeting between the two universities men's basketball teams. These are very slender sources with which to create a comprehensive article about a multi-sport rivalry between State and Southern, especially when there is virtually no shared history of actual athletic competition. This is reminiscent of the Civil Conflict rivalry, in which one of the coaches unilaterally declared a "rivalry"; real rivalries evolve from events, they are not delcared. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm still on the fence, but this article strikes me as presenting an arguably stronger case of rivalry, between the two schools across all sports, than the Civil Conflict. And the AfD in that case ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Conflict (college football game)) garnered substantial "Keep" support (I was neutral in that one) and was not deleted. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Also, I don't necessarily agree with your contention that the second AJC piece ( here) is not reliable. It is published on the AJC web site and written by Doug Roberson, an AJC staff sports reporter (see here. Self-published blogs by individuals with no particular expertise are considered unreliable, but blogs published by those with particularized expertise (e.g., the AJC and its staff reporters) may be considered reliable. See WP:BLOGS. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination, make a single game article if there really is lots of backstory to the contest. Cake ( talk) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I wish this discussion was occurring (revisited) in two months. This year's football game is scheduled for Dec 5 and is the last regular season game for each team (a common scheduling hallmark of rivalry games, though obviously not predictive). The associated, or lack of, media coverage of the presumptive second cycle would be helpful. I do concede the WP:GNG issues including lack of significant independent coverage, whether attributable to "newness" and/or size of fanbases. UW Dawgs ( talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry, as per Ejgreen77 suggestion above. There is insufficient history as of yet to have an article focused solely on a one-game "rivalry series". However, there is significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, which includes coverage of an overall rivalry between the two schools. Moving the page and making it broad enough to cover all aspects of the rivalry makes the most sense to me. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Beta Uprising

Beta Uprising (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - This phrase wasn't known widely prior to the recent Oregon shooting. There are also no solid sources linked to this page. Abc2VE ( talk) 22:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

A single mention on the BBC site doesn't make a meme a 'thing'. EamonnPKeane ( talk) 19:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ EamonnPKeane: maybe not, but 5500 mentions on the /r9k/ board in the year before the UCC shooting should merit some attention. -- 71.179.209.137 ( talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Your examples of "significant coverage" are quite simply just newspapers quoting a phrase used in the ramblings of a deranged madman. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Chess: Yes, the ramblings of a deranged madman which have significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Rubbish computer 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. The meme doesn't come from BBC; I'm not sure if it comes from 4chan but they are known for promoting it. See [46] for another mention (there are a number of articles about this 'threat', though there is no actual mention of violence).
I think that the concept is actually relatively interesting - it's not really just trollery. The claim is that sexual liberation has created a situation of de facto polygamy, where some "alphas" are absorbing all women's affections, leaving the "betas" desperate. And in truth, there is a certain level of natural polygamy among humans - you can look at the difference in sizes of the sexes, plot that on a curve of harem size in various species, and calculate that human men 'biologically' tend to have a harem size of something like 1.3, if I remember right. And of course species with harems are always subject to violence to control them. So we're really seeing a sort of reverse engineering of the Christian ethic; it's possible that you have to give someone, likely Jesus himself, credit for (at least) thinking up a way to make society less violent - it makes us reflect that perhaps we ripped apart some pretty elaborate social technology without really understanding what it was for.
I think the term has a reasonable number of sources behind it; whether they are in depth enough and reliable enough is debatable, but I think it is productive to let this one stay and try to organize the information for a while. It won't hurt the encyclopedia to have this. Wnt ( talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed as "speedy delete", but per a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 3 that closure is undone and the discussion is relisted. See there for additional discussion and also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels.  Sandstein  10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -Enough reliable sources available to make this a notable meme. ABF99 ( talk) 11:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) After further consideration, changing my !vote to delete. Not enough for notability on its own; this meme can be mentioned in the Umpqua Community College shooting article. ABF99 ( talk) 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft/incubation: Though the number and quality of sources have improved since the original nomination and deletion, it's still thin gruel. I think there's merit in the argument that some (incl. SV and Viriditas, IIRC) made, that the article would lead coverage/spread rumours. Making the draft less visible would also cut down on the number of vandals dropping by. Darth Viller ( talk) 12:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 12:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge - The limited sourcing stresses this as a phrase used on 4chan. This doesn't seem to warrant a stand alone article but per sources the phrase "beta uprising" perhaps warrants a brief section on the 4chan article under the "Threats of violence" section.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 14:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ BoboMeowCat: See this incident, where "Beta Uprising" is described by the Washington Post to explain a written threat on a bathroom wall that was cited as reason for a shutdown of Eastern Kentucky University. (The relation may be questionable, but that was The Post's decision) Wnt ( talk) 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeahbut the source provided regarding the Eastern Kentucky University threat scribbled on bathroom stall also mentions "beta uprising" as a thing from 4chan. Every source referenced mentioning phrase "beta uprising" links it to 4chan. The 4chan article already has a "Threats of violence" section [47] and it seems this is where topic currently belongs given the sourcing.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 18:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ BoboMeowCat: What do you think of tucking it away as a draft? Darth Viller ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - No actual link between a chan and an actual shooting has been verified, and most news outlets have never uttered the term "Beta Uprising" even when talking about the chan post. Most of this article's content is talking about how the beta uprising isn't even real. -- TheTruthiness ( talk) 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. We don't have a page for every single 4chan meme, and none of the refs actually focus on it in any depth -- an offhand mention in a few places isn't enough to establish notability or to support an article here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Wikipedia is not 'knowyourmeme'. Also it started as a hoax to get the 'reliable sources' to name the wrong person as the shooter before the real name was known. It was successful and the reliable sources have corrected their information on that. It could be considered a hoax in that respect that is now a joke. This article would be more at home on ED than on Wiki. Also why is this 'Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions' when it's merely a group of people having a lark at the expense of you and journalism. FlossumPossum ( talk) 22:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per above. GamerPro64 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This article and Incels both cover very similar areas. I believe they should be Merged together if either one of is kept. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 00:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am convinced by BoboMeowCat's argument. If the 'pedia deals with this at all, it should be within the 4chan article. Just not enough (and specific/in-depth enough) coverage to justify a separate article. Fyddlestix ( talk) 00:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge per BoboMeowCat. I think this article doesn't have enough individual notability beyond one or two sources, and thus deserves to be merged with the 4chan article. -- 146.203.126.109 ( talk) 01:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 4chan. This is a hoax created by 4chan users. Note that I voted for relisting this at DRV. sst ✈ 01:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Most of the sources provided here don't provide in-depth significant coverage of the article subject. They simply mention or reference it when discussing its main topic. Notability is not temporary, and I agree that this is indicative of temporary notability and per the discussion held above. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is just a 4chan meme and there is no real evidence it is any kind of actual social event or organization. stufff ( talk) 02:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Yet again I'm brought here because people are linking to this article from off-site and laughing at how idiotic Wikipedia is becoming. That there even has to be a discussion about whether this article should be deleted or not should be a matter of personal embarrassment to some. This "beta uprising" thing is a troll. The fact that mainstream news organizations reported on it should not warrant an article on this; rather, it should cause you to question how reliable these jokers really are. Seriously, go read the citations, it's all stories which use anonymous board posts as some sort of evidence of a greater movement causing violent crimes. If this ever changes, if a "beta uprising" movement ever forms to commit acts of violence against society, then it might warrant an article. Until then, I'd like to remind you of WP:DNFTT. Forcing a discussion for the deletion of this idiocy is going to encourage more trolls to pull similar stunts in the future. Akesgeroth ( talk) 02:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
DNFTT should apply equally to commercial interests, like the various reality-TV families who receive lavish coverage here. Which is to say, it shouldn't apply at all. If we can cover something with reliable sources, we should cover it. If Wikipedia coverage encourages people to go out and be creative online, or frightens them into silence because they see FBI and MIsomething investigating 4chan, either way that's none of our concern. Our concern is just to cover the facts. Wnt ( talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Also I should note that WP:CANVASS applies here. Wnt ( talk) 12:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeah, non-sequiturs and threats. Really convincing words there. Akesgeroth ( talk) 03:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Rule 1 and 2. The most effectual Bob Cat ( talk) 03:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For anyone unaware of the situation, 4chan contributors pride themselves on trolling and contestants get extra points for fooling gullible media into mentioning one of their made-up jokes. It's good that sites like 4chan exist because they help to alert people that you shouldn't believe everything you read, particularly on the internet, however Wikipedia should not participate in that noble aim. There is no evidence of notability, and in a month even the 4chan crowd will have forgotten about this joke. The media have to fill space 24×7 so it is not surprising that they occasionally publish junk, but a couple of mentions do not satisfy WP:N. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I am almost speechless. Surely this Wikipedia article is intended as a joke. Since when did Wikipedia merge with the Urban Dictionary to include any obscure, bizarre made-up term it can find? The background section alone leaves me stupified beyond reason. The entire thing seems to be based on a 4chan meme and a couple of Reddit posts. And 'Angry pepe'? Really? The Pepe-meme? Really? The fact that the pepe-meme is included in a serious tone makes me suspect the author of this article is a troll, its that bad. Omegastar ( talk) 06:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Provided there is data about them, why shouldn't Wikipedia cover memes? There was a huge argument over Campaign for "santorum" neologism but fortunately we realized it was worth covering. We feature practically every piece of software somebody is selling on the front page with everything but a buy now link, so why should we feel ashamed to describe the oddball ideas that make the news? Does someone have to put out payola to make something new acceptable for us to cover? Wnt ( talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
You can find 'data' on literally anything. I consider myself an inclusionist, but even then there are many things that should not be included on Wikipedia. The 'Santorum' neologism is notable because it had a large impact - it displaced Santorum's official website and biographies on google. "A phrase used on 4chan and Reddit" (as the lead of the article puts it) is not notable. Your argument about software is not relevant, as that is an entirely different topic. And I am not sure what you are trying to say with your payola reference, though I will add that Wikipedia isn't a news-site, and its actually a good thing not to cover 'new' things as quick as possible, because you're not going to be able to write a balanced article about something until enough time has passed for its impact to become clear. Omegastar ( talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We don't know if the post on /r9k/ is really linked to the shooter or not. The Beta Uprising joke is in itself not notable, and is just mentioned as part of the brief news cycle. Right now there is not even enough sources to warrant a mention in the Oregon shooting article, let alone a full article. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 08:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I expressed some hesitancy to include it in that article myself, because we don't know for sure that the shooter in that case ever posted to 4chan. It might be a coincidence. But the media coverage cited here was of the meme and comments itself. Wnt ( talk) 12:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- per Omegastar. This is an encyclopedia, not Urban Dictionary. A terrible article about a non-notable meme, full of dubiously sourced attempts to link it to a recent murder. Wikipedia should not be promoting bilge like this. Reyk YO! 09:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete puerile nonsense. Deserves at most a one sentence summary on "List of Internet phenomena" but no more. The existence of parody/satire on the internet, and false threats, means that BBC coverage is pointless. This is the worst of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS and poor use of interpolated opinion pieces as "sources" -- Callinus ( talk) 13:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are plenty of sites out there to track memes. This seems to be not a real thing, and not a notable fake thing. HighInBC 14:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Men like these are under severe attacks by liberal animals and recently a completely reasonable article on Involuntary Celibacy that was fairly well cited had been removed for purely ideological reasons. One the main forces to keep it removed has been a <personal attack removed> who is now banned called Tarc. But memes like these are really not Wikipedia material and don't deserve to be even merged anywhere. If you want to start addressing these most crucial issues start with something that actually isn't just a meme. Especially given how there is now an article on Cuckservative now. Inclusionism, to a reasonable point. Wikipedia isn't reasonable and had fallen to ideology, it seems. Andrey Rublyov ( talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is not knowyourmeme. -- David G ( talk) 05:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:GNG requires persistent coverage over a period of time. We don't have that and there's no indication we will. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Callinus. Should have stayed a speedy delete and sending this back to AFD to get snow deleted is process wonkery imo. shoy ( reactions) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a really pointless Wikipeida page that was only based on a joke.-- Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 18:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • transwiki to Wiktionary. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC). reply
    21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I’m adding WP:NOTNEWS to the long list of reasons to delete this article. Almost all of the news articles that gave the term more than a passing mention were published on or within a couple of days of October 5th, 2015. I’ve only been able to find one news source that published information about the so-called Beta uprising on or after October 10th. Ultimately, I’m seeing this as just another twisted prank from 4chan that got a little bit of media attention but ultimately lacks lasting impact. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if there isn't any sort of policy, it might be time to write one: internet memes, even if they cross to the mainstream are not notable for Wikipedia. At most, this should have a 1 line mention at List of Internet phenomena. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Echoing the general consensus that this is basically just another meme article for a meme that at present has no encyclopedic notability. Muldrake ( talk) 18:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 4chan. This, to me, ought to be redirect to 4chan as an example of the prank that it so obviously is. so that this doesn't occur again! MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - is not notable and uses the absolute lowest grade of The sky is falling! journalism as sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Pile-On Delete Callinus said it perfectly. Crow Caw 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is an old meme that resurfaced due to recent events, it will be completely forgotten soon enough. BoxofPresents ( talk) 23:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possible merge to 4chan. There is coverage of this, but it's not heavy enough at this point in time to warrant an article. Someone here had mentioned merging it somewhere and I think that this could probably warrant a brief mention at 4chan. The shooting page was mentioned, but I'm not entirely sure that this would be good to merge there. Reddit is always a possibility, but the name bandied around more in the news is 4chan. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A 4chan in-joke doesn't need a full article, this isn't knowyourmeme. 82.197.242.162 ( talk) 12:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to 4chan. Kaldari ( talk) 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm inclined to suggest that what needs to happen here is for editors to use this article's sources to build stronger connections (prose, not just see-also) between the articles on the different shootings (Spencer, Roger, etc.), the different websites (4chan, Reddit MRAs, etc.), and relevant phenomena (violence against women). The sources are observing a trend, I'm just not sure a separate article is merited. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 4chan. I don't see why we can't redirect to 4chan. It would be trivially easy to add a sourced sentence there about this, if that's an issue. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This article looks like it be more appropriate for something like UrbanDictionary than Wikipedia. The citations are questionable at best. PlantRunner ( talk) 05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

PČ99

PČ99 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PC System Design Guide is PC99.
Nothing about PČ99 helmet. Xx236 ( talk) 11:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the PC99 article is entirely unrelated and I've removed it. The MPC-1 article merely refers to PČ99, it doesn't describe it or link it, so it's effectively a violation of the disambiguation page policy on red links. If someone wants to write about PČ99, having a red link there is certainly less confusing than a disambiguation page that isn't one. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 10. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 10:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTOCMES. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Maruthi Vidya Kendra

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

Non-notable elementary and middle-school. Was prodded 7 days ago, and the prod tag removed with the following explanation: "A tag has been posted nominating this article for deletion. However I object this as the notability of this article can be proved. This is an institue I have personally studied in and it is an important institute in Tumkur, Karnataka. I shall be improving the article as soon as possible. Thankyou." Since he created the article, they have done very little to improve it. Searches on Google, News, Books, Scholar, and Highbeam returned nothing but a few brief mentions. Onel5969 TT me 00:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This is a K–10 school. That is considered a secondary school in many nations' education systems and many editors here. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Mention to Tumkuru and redirect likely as is usual with these elementary and middle schools. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (negotiate) 10:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. Does actually appear to be a secondary school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kingsbury (band)

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

There's simply nothing to suggest better notabiltiy and improvement with the band seeming to be active from 2008 to 2011 and again since then and my searches finding nothing better than some old news here and here. This is easily speedy and PROD material but as there are a few sources (not they are enough to save this article of course), comments would be good to accompany this nomination. Pinging past user Mattgirling. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (parlez) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sally Worboyes

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

My searches simply found nothing to suggest even minimal improvement with my searches only finding her books at Books and the usual links with browser...aside from that nothing else for this article from August 2008 and this is easily speedy and PROD material. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confide) 10:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm not finding anything about her except blurbs from publishers, which are not terribly independent of the subject. /wia /talk 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While prolific, she doesn't appear to be notable. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 15:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I didn't find any reviews or biographical sources. She writes young adult books in the UK, which may mean that she is better known there than in the US -- and I mainly check US sources. So I'll check back to see if someone with a more UK YA bent has found more to support her article. LaMona ( talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thomas Schücke

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

Seemingly open and shut case of non-notability so unless he actually got some good coverage and it's archived, there's nothing to suggest keeping (this is also speedy and PROD material) and this has basically stayed the same since November 2006. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (express) 10:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No reliable sources, and the @de Wikipedia article is exactly the same. If there are sources, they will be in German sources, and it seems clear that he doesn't have international acclaim. LaMona ( talk) 22:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Torrence Allen

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 2 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! 08:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (babble) 10:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Gefährliche Wege

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

I'm not sure if this can be better notable and improved as my best searches were at Books (where I found various results for these two words), although there aren't many details to help searching, and this also has gotten almost no changes since starting in January 2009. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this is a book written to be used in school to teach the German language to English-speakers, it comes as a kit with the printed book, the whole story (20 episodes) on 7 audio tapes and a teacher's guide. It seems to have been used widely in 10th to 12th grade German lessons, there is a " curriculum review" and there is this. The book was published in 1976, and there's also a Spanish version, both written by Emile de Harven. Kraxler ( talk) 01:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the German title translates to "dangerous routes" it's obviously not the easiest subject title to search for. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (address) 09:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even if the IPs are discounted, we don't really have a clear consensus to delete.  Sandstein  11:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kenichi Sawai

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

Martial artist with no significant independent coverage. Sources are passing mentions and he's not even mentioned in all of them. Being soundly defeated repeatedly by someone is not grounds for notability nor is creating a minor variation of an existing martial art. Jakejr ( talk) 04:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject of documentaries (e.g. [54]) and books in his native Japan, author of multiple published books, covered in multiple sources (which of the sources in the article doesn't mention him? I can find his name in every single one), important figure in Japanese and internal martial arts history. Try Googling his name in Japanese... [55] Yunshui  雲 水 07:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep many documentaries in Japan. 173.52.89.236 ( talk) 12:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Please list some of the "many documentaries" you claim are there. Astudent0 ( talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Undecided The article's sources are passing mentions. FWIW my internet search didn't find him in the "Chinese Kung Fu" book. Yunshui does provide a link to a documentary, but I noticed his entry on the Japanese WP only has one source so that's a problem. Are his books considered significant as defined at WP:MANOTE? Astudent0 ( talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The mention in Chinese Kung Fu is under the alternate reading of his name, "Keniqi Takuike". Yunshui  雲 水 07:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Thank you, but that appears to be another passing mention. Astudent0 ( talk) 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep passes gng 2607:FB90:E9A:510D:0:48:EBBF:E701 ( talk) 04:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete I'm changing my undecided to weak delete based on the lack of significant independent coverage that has been presented. I'm seeing claims but not enough supporting evidence. Astudent0 ( talk) 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Kenichi Sawai was a notable student of Wang Xiangzhai. He was likely the first ever to teach a Chinese Internal martial art in Japan (the art of Yi Quan) and during his time one of very few in Japan who taught Chinese martial arts in general. He was good friends with Mas Oyama and the two cross-influenced each other. Jonathan.bluestein ( talk) 10:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Notability is not inherited from teachers or friends. If you have a reliable independent source that says he was the first to teach a Chinese internal martial art in Japan, that's different. Do you have such a source? Mdtemp ( talk) 18:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep GOOD ARTICLES ABOUT HIM ONLINE 2607:FB90:246A:83B:0:24:F72F:A901 ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Again we have a new IP making the same claims as the other new IPs, but not furnishing any evidence or links. Papaursa ( talk) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete There is not enough significant independent coverage of him to support the claim he meets WP:GNG. Of those advocating the article be kept, only Yunshui has provided any supporting evidence and that was just one source. The fact that the Japanese WP also has just one source doesn't help his case. Searching in Japanese sources I was able to find mentions of his name, but not to determine if the coverage was both significant and from independent and reliable sources. Papaursa ( talk) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I feel that he should be kept but it is hard to come up with a good reason - the coverage isn't great. He is sort of a nexus point which we can see but find difficult to describe. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete searches turned up nothing to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Onel5969 TT me 02:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 09:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  10:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Wild Palms (band)

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

Article (re-)created in violation of WP:COI guideline, likely by label One Little Indian employee. May be sufficiently notable (or may be not), but I think it is better to wait for the article to be created without conflict of interest. Delete — Kusma ( t· c) 13:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Damn (band) and my talk page for some background. — Kusma ( t· c) 13:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable enough. The article seems fairly neutral, although it could use a lot of work. Coverage from The Quietus, Clash, The List, The Skinny, Uncut, Q, NME, Mojo, Huffington Post, and The Gazette, among others, could be used to improve the article. -- Michig ( talk) 08:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That is clearly not the case. -- Michig ( talk) 06:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I'm simply not seeing as much coverage there could be and the best my searches found was this. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You only found the first page of a Google search? -- Michig ( talk) 07:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Might help if you put the band name and the member name in quotes to cut out irrelevant results. e.g. search for "wild palms" "lou hill". -- Michig ( talk) 07:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Michig. I'm finding in-depth coverage that could be used to fill out the article. Andreas JN 466 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and weak keep: Actually for whatever reason this article was recreated; the original article was tagged by me as a G12, (copyvio): [56] and an admin deleted it under that same QD reason. An admin who can see these details could verify. I see no reason to delete for a conflict of interest and this version does not seem to have been blatently copied from another's writing. Thanks Fylbecatulous talk 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The fact that the article creator has a COI is not sufficient reason in itself to delete. If the previous version of the article was deleted for copyvio, that shouldn't prejudice the current version so long as it contains no text copied from elsewhere. Now, I only looked at the first page of results for the string ["Wild Palms" "Ex Lion Tamers]" but even that yielded three sources (all themselves notable) which support notability:
Combined with the other sources Michig mentioned it looks like more than enough to meet the notability standard, even the more specific guideline for bands. I am already working on other articles Trincres17 (another employee of One Little Indian records) created or wished to have created; perhaps Michig and I can work together to help the Wild Palms (band) article better meet Wikipedia standards. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 12:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Randy Shain

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

I'm questioning the currency of the first AfD nomination as although my searches found links here, here, here and here, I'm not sure if this can be improved. I'm notifying John Z although it seems he's not very active but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz still is. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (palaver) 09:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete I'm finding some coverage: Venturebeat, but mostly mentions and quotes (not themselves = notability, but provide some support). The book is held in about 850 WorldCat libraries, which is a moderate showing. I can't find any reviews of the book. If others can find better sources, I'll re-think. LaMona ( talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & LaMona - I also cant nothing but mentions, No evidence of notability - Fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 00:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maybe renominate if still deemed problematic after the cleanup by Biscuittin.  Sandstein  10:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Application of CFD in Thermal Power Plant

Application of CFD in Thermal Power Plant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is completely unreferenced and no links to credible sources in the references. I'm unable to find verification regarding it's the notability or significance of claim. ♔  MONARCH  Talk to me 07:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - would make a great engineering thesis paper but is probably too specific and technical for WP. WP:NOTJOURNAL shoy ( reactions) 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the only specific link I found for this was at Books but nothing else better aside from that. WP:TNT and restart if and when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I have tidied up the article and I think it is now acceptable. Biscuittin ( talk) 19:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interview) 09:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly meets subject specific guideline on multiple accounts. Nomination rationale is fundamentally flawed. Fenix down ( talk) 08:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Matías Escudero

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

Fails WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG and neither of them exist in this page in order to pass the above criteria. NextGenSam619 t@lk 09:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NextGenSam619 t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619 t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619 t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619 t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Subject does in fact pass WP:NFOOTY, the football-specific notability guideline, by having played in a fully professional league as listed at WP:FPL. In fact, three fully professional leagues. He is currently playing for the reigning Primera División de Chile champions, and contributed with 13 games as they won that title. Before that, he played 147 times for Nueva Chicago in the Primera B Nacional and the Primera B Metropolitana in Argentina, both of which are listed as fully professional. This information is verified in the Soccerway and BDFA external links already present in the article. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 08:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Struway2. Giant Snowman 12:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Struway2. The article definitely needs improvement, not deletion. Please remember WP:BEFORE. —  Jkudlick  t c s 15:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Struway2 passes WP:FOOTY. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY. Nfitz ( talk) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

403 forbidden 寅

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

Fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. Lacking notability since July 2013. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Only sources to iTunes and last.fm, and no reliable independent sources found in search. Classic zero-source non-notable. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 02:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No indication of any independent notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS. -- DAJF ( talk) 11:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as mentioned above, this album doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS and I can't find any reliable sources that discuss or review it. /wia /talk 12:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Rexhep Thaqi

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, never played in a fully professional league Ymblanter ( talk) 07:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subject has not played senior international football and currently does not play in a WP:FPL. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - on account of subject's extraordinary height (183m) 94.12.160.252 ( talk) 21:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Not a valid reason to keep the article. It looks like this comment has been added for fun.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    I corrected the height in the infobox. My !vote still stands. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lists of Hindus. Consensus is that at this level of generality only a "list of lists" makes sense.  Sandstein  09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Hindus

AfDs for this article:
List of Hindus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous nomination noted that there were over 970 million Hindus. Currently we claim there are over a billion. The only reason why this list isn't bogglingly huge is that (a) nobody is bothering to maintain it, and/or (b) it's difficult to ascertain which of the thousands of Indians we have bios for can be claimed to be Hindus. It's not quite as bad as "List of medieval European Christians" would be, but it's close enough: it's very nearly a "list of all Indians not proven to be not Hindu". Mangoe ( talk) 13:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • That still has the problem of nearly being "list of famous Indians". It's still nearly indiscriminate. Mangoe ( talk) 14:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It's already limited to notable Hindus, i.e., those who have articles. It's simply a matter of style preference that we don't include such self-referential criteria as "notable" in the list title. See WP:LISTNAME: "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs." Confusion on this point seems to be at the heart of many list AFDs, as people mistakenly think titling an article "list of Xs" somehow magically compels us to include every X that exists, and then they say we must delete that straw man. postdlf ( talk) 16:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The lists that you've cited are in fact lists of lists (the exception being the Buddhism list which is a list of Buddhists notable within Buddhism). The article in question is a single list of names which, if properly populated, has the potential to be thousands of names long. I could accept an argument for keeping the article and turning it into a list of list like your examples but keeping it in its current form would be nonsensical and a fairly useless resource. -- Non-Dropframe talk 18:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Big lists are naturally split across many pages. But we're not here to discuss the exact format or structure; that's ordinary editing. We're to decide whether to delete this list topic in its entirety, i.e. make it a red link. That has not been done in those other cases and so it should not be done in this one either. Andrew D. ( talk) 20:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Those are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problems of their own. You can talk about making a composite of lists (which I personally think is a clumsy thing that we shouldn't be doing) and there is maybe one of interest already ( List of converts to Hinduism) but that's really something for a WP:TNT approach: unless someone is going to step up to do that rewrite, now, the list will remain an indiscriminate collection of Indians with bios indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 October 2015
  • They aren't even WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEVENEXIST. Andrew linked us to non-existent lists that redirect to lists of lists. We aren't talking about a list of lists here, we're talking about a list. The deletion of this list does not preclude the creation of lists with narrower scope. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This list is incomplete garbage. I've converted Lists of Hindus from a redirect here to a list of lists, though there are surprising few lists. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete current list, and then Redirect to Lists of Hindus. The current list fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The criteria here, notable people who are or were Hindus are not supported by reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. As to the list of lists mentioned by Non-Dropframe and Clarityfiend, that would be fine, but it is not this list. WP:TNT. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and convert to list of lists per Lugnuts and Andrew D. I honestly don't understand most of the criticism above, which seems to ignore that we almost always limit lists of people to only those who have or merit articles, so the number of Hindus in the world is irrelevant. It's also not credible that who qualifies as "Hindu" is unverifiable, and for this list (and any appropriate sublists) that's all that reliable sources need to support. So keep per WP:LISTPURP and as complementary to Category:Hindus per WP:CLN. Everything else is editing; there are no valid deletion arguments here. postdlf ( talk) 00:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Postdlf: It is fine to keep the title for a "list of lists", but you will have to wipe the existing content to do so. The reason that this list is "indescriminate information" is the same reason that a list of "notable people" would be indescriminate. There are not enough criteria to use to discriminate in any 'meaningful way. A "list of lists" would be just that, each linked list would have to justify itself according to the criteria at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and the policy at WP:NOT. But aside from the title, there is nothing to save here, hence WP:TNT. Articles may be improved during Afd, so if you wanted to wipe the page and do a "list of lists", each having selection criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, as well as narrow enough to meet the challenge of being called indescriminate, then that would be bold. -- Bejnar ( talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure I'm understanding your comment about what you think is "indiscriminate" here; it seems to just represent a point that has already been responded to (including by me) but I don't see anything in this latest comment that reflects that. Beyond that, I don't think TNT is a constructive approach in most cases. postdlf ( talk) 22:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
There are not enough criteria currently in use for the list to discriminate in any meaningful way. That is why a list of lists would work, since there would be additional criteria that would give each list meaning, and greater utlility. That's the difference between indescriminate info and meaningful info. -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I can only understand that as you thinking the "list of [notable people who are verifiably] Hindus" is too broad. But given that you think subdivided lists would not be too broad, and there is substantively no difference between subheaders (as the list currently has) and sublists, you do not have a deletion argument, because no matter what we have a viable topic that can be improved through further editing. Which only leaves you with your TNT opinion, for which there is clearly not consensus. postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
To get a list of list, you will have to remove all the existing content, and its edit history will not be relevent to the resulting article. That's what I am saying. Normally that is called WP:TNT, if you want to call it something else, be my guest. -- Bejnar ( talk) 23:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. To convert this to a list of lists, you would split off the existing content into sublists following WP:SPLIT, thus retaining the history, and then develop each sublist by expanding it. Not every subdivision would merit a separate list, however, and so it would probably make sense to expand first this master list until it got developed to the point where WP:SIZE merited splitting off particular subgroups, to then be replaced within this title by links to those lists, while retaining those subdivisions for which there were few entries. Many of the subcategories in Category:Hindus by nationality have few entries, and so it would not make sense to make separate lists for all of them. Bottom line, deleting this title first helps no one and accomplishes nothing (nor does this discussion for that matter). postdlf ( talk) 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I know it is frustrating, and I empathise. Which means I am not going to convince you that the better way is to put in the existing lists, such as List of Hindu gurus and saints, List of Hindu soldiers, List of Hindu Nobel laureates, List of converts to Hinduism, etc. and then as new lists are developed add them in. -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 06:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Convert to a list of lists. A complete list of notable Hindus would be impractical. Bharatiya29 ( talk) 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redirect - Clearly not an appropriate topic for a list. By "convert", it seems people mean "get rid of this article and create a totally new one on a different topic (lists of Hindus rather than Hindus), then redirect this title to that new article". That's not a sensible outcome for AfD. It's the equivalent of "Redirect to a page that will be created later". If you're using neither the content nor even the title of the article we're discussing, the outcome is delete. If there's a redirect target, we could redirect, but it doesn't make sense to close an afd as "create a redirect target and redirect to it". Deletion doesn't preclude the creation of other articles, lists, or lists or lists, and doesn't preclude redirecting this when an appropriate target emerges. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for creating the list of lists. Updated my !vote to redirect there like the others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kelsely Abaza

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

Overly promotional lovefest for non notable individual. Mix of cruft and hoax.
Some examples of the lies and misrepresentations peppering this article:

Article states "He was signed to the Egyptian record label Mazzika in March 2011, selling in Egypt 290,000 copies of his EP Practic Fast." Sounds impressive. 290,000!! The source used to verify? [57]. An article on another band. No mention of 290,000. No mention of Abaza. No mention of Mazzika.
Article claims "He gained critical acclaim[1] in Egypt following audio-visual multimedia performances in 2011 and 2012." Source used to verify this is a source from 2002, a decade before the claimed concerts. An article about someone else entirely.
Article states "In the same program the presenter stated that the composer's work has "a strange style but [which] is easy to love... [and has] beautiful melodies."". Those qoutes do not appear in the source. Makes no mantion of anyone being a composer.

The section titled "Writing and political views" is pure cruft. It's a personal essay collecting together cherry picked quotes from his work and put together with original research to try give the impression tha Abaza and his writing is significant. There is no independent reporting or analysis of his work anywhere here.
That section is much like the last love letter on him that I know of, Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza. Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza it too was a promo piece built up around qoutes from his work, not around independent coverage.
Another earlier article on him Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza was also deleted at afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza
There is a lack of coverage ABOUT HIM in independent reliable sources.
This bloated mess needs to be deleted. duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The quote you mention is cited wrong. It's from the TV program not the 'Talk like an Egyptian' article. It's at the start of the show. I fixed that. Will check the rest later. Chunkyjunkie1987 ( talk) 07:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
You are right about Mazzika. Kelsely Abaza's own website says that he does not work with them. Also I am fairly sure 'Practic Fast' is not an EP, or was abandoned, not released, or changed title. There is only a remix of it online. I heard it live in Christchurch but it's a song not an EP. (But this is really confusing as he played a song under that title but numbered '8' in his Auckland gig. I know it well as he plays it almost every single gig and it's been renamed 'Sojourn' and has its own music video). The citation about acclaim for the concert in 2011 is about Halim El-Dabh, it's pretty random/clumsy to place it there (I reckon whoever placed it doesn't know Arabic!). Halim El-Dabh did actually make the remarks about Kelsely Abaza. The only mention of this and of the concerts I know of is in the same program cited just before. I messaged Kelsely Abaza's Facebook page asking about this. I'll see how it goes. Problem with writing is that most of it was in the Christchurch Press and Dominion Post, his website only links to two online articles. Chunkyjunkie1987 ( talk) 08:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Oh. But I LOVE his music. Graceaudio ( talk) 08:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) I go to every gig he does in town. reply
Also; his official website states clearly that he is going to play in NEW ZEALAND in 2016. No word about Egypt. The TV show is confused/confusing! Chunkyjunkie1987 ( talk) 14:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nothing notable showing up in NZ media. Has one mention of a concert but that was promotional. NealeFamily ( talk) 03:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Does not look to be notable ( WP:GNG), but at best this is a WP:TNT scenario, with too much questionable or promotional content and almost all of it contributed by sock puppets. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I see no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable, nothing showing up on searches. Plagued by self-promotional socks, it's verging on hoax. DeCausa ( talk) 21:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgia Tech–Tennessee football rivalry

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

Poorly-sourced and probably insignificant rivalry. Most of the "coverage" seems to be hyping up the fact that the game will be played for the first time in 30 years come 2017. p b p 04:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It appears that this was a notable rivalry in the past--and once notability is achieved it cannot be taken away. The NBC article does reference it as a "rivalry" also. Beef it up, don't delete.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Paulmcdonald: The NBC Sports "article" is obviously a minimally rewritten canned press release from the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game committee. It mentions the word "rivalry," but the coverage hardly rises to the level of "significant coverage" under the general notability guidelines. Have you found any significant coverage of this series as a traditional college rivalry in the past? Perhaps including a discussion of the "rivalry" history, traditions, and significance to the respective teams, universities, student bodies and alumni? In the absence of significant coverage sufficient for a stand-alone article, nothing prevents coverage of this "rivalry" in the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and Tennessee Volunteers football articles. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Surely if there is a rivalry given the listing of games it deals with Bobby Dodd. However, I can find nothing in newspapers, and in my experience with southern football and the SEC (a pretty firm grasp from before 1933 and after 1989), it is not one of which I have ever heard. Cake ( talk) 18:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ MisterCake: You may want to give this one another look. I initially thought it was a "delete" but have changed my mind after looking more closely. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Vote withdrawn. Yes, I already planned to change my vote to something more ambivalent, thanks for the reminder. It takes some digging to find things about it, but there do seem multiple notable games, and there are sources which call it a "rivalry". Still surprised I've found little mention of Dodd as part of the rivalry as cited above. Cake ( talk) 18:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. This one is not clearcut, but I lean to the "delete" side based on the limited coverage I've seen so far. Will reconsider if more coverage is found. Since the two teams haven't played in almost 30 years, it is certainly not an active rivalry. In considering whether it constituted a rivalry historically, we need to dig deeper. In considering some of the intangible measures of a rivalry, I note the following: (1) trophy: No; (2) identifiable name associated with series: No; (3) length and frequency of play: Medium (series began in 1902, 43 games played in the 85 years thereafter, 35-year gap from 1911-1946, peak in 1950s-1960s, no games since 1987 but plans to renew in 2017); (4) prominence of the programs: High (two of the great powers in Southern football history - 4 national titles for Tech, 6 for Tennessee); (5) geographical proximity: Close (bordering states and only 214 miles from Knoxville to Atlanta); and (6) competitiveness - Good (series has been relatively close with Tennessee holding a 24-17 edge). Both pros and cons on intangibles; this one probably has to rise or fall based on the extent of the historical coverage. In addition to the NBC blurb found in the article, a quick search of newspapers.com turns up the following: (1) this from 1957 calling it a "fierce" football rivalry and claiming that "the Vol-Tech rivalry attained classic status" in 1956 (more like this would sway me to vote "keep"); and (2) this AP game account from 1962 referring to the two programs as rivals but having no depth regarding rivalry. If this were a true rivalry, I would expect to see more coverage of the game as a significant rivalry in the 1950s and 1960s. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Good find on the one about '56. It was between AP #2 and AP #3 and the underdog won. Will dig about for info pertaining to that one. Here is a similar source. Here is video. Cake ( talk) 09:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Cake. The 1957 UP article is a good one. This raises a broader point. Where two schools have a long history of play, and have had at least a couple great, classic games between them, does this elevate the series to the level of a traditional rivalry? Typically not. Should such series nevertheless be covered in Wikipedia as a notable series (e.g., "Georgia Tech - Tennessee football series")? Under existing precedent, the answer has been no. The existing practice may or may not be correct, and this may be a broader discussion worth having at some point. For example, in the case of Michigan (the team with which I am most familiar), we do not have stand-alone articles concerning Michigan's series with Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, or Northwestern. These series are not "rivalries", but in each case there have been a number of historical games where the two teams met in classic games when both were among the top teams in the country. I'm not advocating a change in policy at this time, but "Georgia Tech - Tennessee" might qualify, if at all, as a notable "series" rather than as a true "rivalry". Cbl62 ( talk) 15:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Hmmm . . . The focus in these AfDs has always been on whether a series qualifies as traditional "rivalry". This may not be the correct analysis in all cases. There are likely some long-standing "series" that are notable under WP:GNG even though they are not "rivalries". It may be that we are struggling to fit square pegs into round holes. Some of these square pegs may be notable even though they don't fit into the "rivalry" hole. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree. In my own area of research, I have wondered whether I should add a bit about Michigan and Texas to the Vandy article. I trust you know about the Michigan series, and for 7 out of 8 seasons before the Red River rivalry gets played regularly between OU-UT at the state fair, it was Vandy-UT. Perhaps it can be done like how the Florida Gators article deals with Alabama. Georgia-Yale, and other regularly scheduled intersectional contests, are worth consideration for mention somewhere, even if perhaps an article on the rivalry is overkill. Maybe a game article for the Tech-Tennessee '56 matchup? Cake ( talk) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I created Illinois–Michigan football series concerning a notable, non-rivalry, series. A square peg that meets WP:GNG on its own merit. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I expanded 1922 Michigan vs. Vanderbilt football game to include the prior games even though there's one more meeting, perhaps a similar case. Cake ( talk) 16:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Having looked more deeply at this series, I am changing my vote to "Keep". Whether or not it qualifies as a "traditional rivalry", this qualifies as a notable, historical football series. The series dates back to 1902, will soon be revived, and reached a peak of competitiveness from 1946 to 1970 when both teams were football powerhouses. During that time, there were a number of classic games in which both teams were highly ranked or in which unranked Tennessee squads (four times, actually) upset highly-ranked Georgia Tech teams. The games drew national press coverage and, in some cases, national television coverage in an era when national TV coverage was not common. With coverage like this calling it a "fierce" football rivalry and claiming that "the Vol-Tech rivalry attained classic status", it could be considered a notable rivalry, though I think a move to Georgia Tech–Tennessee football series might be more apt. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Or better yet, perhaps the content could be added to the various single-season articles about the Tennessee Volunteers from 1946 to 1970, the overwhelming majority of which presently exist as two and three-sentence stubs that do not even mention Georgia Tech . . . and form the core of new Georgia Tech single-season articles that have yet to be created. Those single-game descriptions already have a home without creating an entirely new class of articles. Robbing content from one class of articles (single-season articles) to create a new class ("football series") . . . . is what exactly? Not including this core content in the single-season articles makes the single-season articles redundant. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
" Robbing content" -- seriously? Single-season articles have a horizontal and tree-level focus on one team in a particular year, whereas rivalry/series articles have a vertical and forest-level focus, examining the interaction between two programs against a historical, multi-year perspective. I think the multi-year, historical perspective is very useful and in no way takes away from, or renders "redundant", single-season articles. I would typically expect the season articles to have more detailed accounts of each game, and a rivalry/series article to have a more forest-level approach to the historical interaction. No reason both classes of article can't co-exist, and indeed, they already do. Of course, there are WP:GNG limits on both classes of article. I am in no way suggesting that every series warrants this type of historical treatment in a separate article, only those which are truly notable. Happy to discuss the parameters/limits for such articles in another forum if you'd like. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
We already summarize individual games in multiple articles. For example, the November 1887 Michigan-Notre Dame game is discussed in at least three places: (1) 1887 ND, (2) 1887 Mich, and (3) Mich-ND rivalry. Each article serves a different, valid purpose. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Seriously. Focus on the problem, not the metaphor. In your newly created Illinois vs. Michigan "series" article, almost every one of the game summaries is a duplicate of content that should exist in the non-existent Illinois single-game articles. Instead of building the single-season articles you have advocated in the past, you now have proposed the creation of a competitor class. Stripped of the individual game summaries, the one to three-paragraph "forest-level" summary of the series properly belongs in the parent articles about the two teams. Creating a new class of articles for notable, non-rivalry series is poorly conceived and the content in most instances will be redundant to single-season articles and parent team articles. We are already unable to police rivalry articles in a meaningful way, largely because of the fragmented and often shallow views on what constitutes "significant coverage" per GNG; expanding the field to so-called "notable series" loosens an already ill-defined standard, and the expansion will not be restricted to a few "meaningful" series. It will be the exception that swallows the rule, as every series will become a separate article -- the only difference being that we will call it a "series" rather than a "rivalry". Most of our rivalry articles exist as a series record table with minimal introductory text, and this will be exactly the pattern for your proposed new class of "series" articles. Stop and think before you go down this path; the consequences are obvious. It is not an accident that no other sports WikiProject has conceived of a comparable class of articles as you are now proposing. What we will have is a confusing mess of team articles, season articles, rivalry articles, and series articles, where it is unclear where content is supposed to go, and where the content of articles will duplicate, and in some cases contradict, each other. The creation of an entirely new class of articles really needs to be a carefully considered decision of WikiProject College football, and not as an aside of an AfD, and not decided in a moment of "enthusiasm". Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The consequence I foresee, if appropriately limited to truly notable series, is the enrichment of the encyclopedia with historical perspective on notable series. The merits of Illinois–Michigan football series (or Chicago–Purdue football rivalry, as another recently-created example) is not the subject of this AfD, but I'm happy to discuss the merits of that article on its talk page if you would like. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
In all fairness to DL, Cbl62, this situation was discussed before, back in July 2012. So, there is a certain amount of prior consensus here, as far as "series" articles go. As for this article, in particular, I'm not going to vote here, one way or the other, simply because I'm not familiar enough with SEC football to be able to contribute intelligently on this particular subject. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that we neither need or want any "Boston College–Iowa State football series" type articles (not that people haven't tried), but in order to prevent them we probably do need to draw the line, somewhere. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 01:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
You are right, Ej, I did say in 2012 that non-rivalry "series" articles should be discouraged (as in the case of Ole Miss-Notre Dame that you linked). I still hold that position for the most part, but my view has softened a bit since then, and there are some series that are so clearly notable (I submit that Illinois–Michigan football series fits that bill) that we ought to have coverage. Of course, the tricky part is where to draw the line, and we'll have to work through that issue, though that discussion is probably better handled outside the context of this AfD. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunate to see two of the best editors in these parts so often go at it. Hopefully it is sometimes fruitful. I must say I see more of cbl62's side, and see nothing wrong with covering a team's games for a notable season as well as for a notable opponent to bridge the gap and build the web between single games and all of conference, conference seasons, and teams. Guided by the assessment section, here is my imperfect, Titian-inspired rendition of our knowledge tree at WPCFB: 1. The vertical dimension represents importance and the lines of interaction as a set to its members, and thus should go both ways. Cake ( talk) 01:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This was a rivalry before Georgia Tech left the SEC. Even when Tech left the SEC they still meet annually. When they announced that Tech-UT to play in 2017 in Atlanta, it mentions “This will be the renewing of a long and beloved rivalry that’s been off the board for far too long,” said Percy Vaughn, Peach Bowl, Inc. chairman in a released statement. “And it’s a great addition to the long-standing ACC vs. SEC rivalry games we have been able to put together.” [1] CollegeRivalry ( talk), 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Honorata De Guzman-Manalo

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

Only references on Google were to her family. Is she independently notable? I dream of horses ( C) @ 04:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( C) @ 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( C) @ 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
What's the connection between Iglesia ni Cristo and the proposed deletion, out of curiosity? There's a connection with a family member (her husband), but what about Honorata's role in the church makes her notable? /wia /talk 14:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm not seeing anything here either but fanaticism from members of the sect.-- RioHondo ( talk) 02:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Christian Drapeau

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

Author/academic with no apparent claim of notability. Tagged for notability since early 2010 without improvement, no better sources found. Article creator shares a name with the publishing house of a couple of subject's books. -- Finngall talk 18:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak keep, Enough news sources cover him in both a positive and negative light that I think he's... just barely deserving. Note that in the Huffpost article by Raymond L. Flynn, Flynn is noted as an advisor to Drapeau's company, while in other articles like this one in the Boston Herald, he is not. This article appears in the Le Devoir, although it is a bit promotional in tone. Perhaps more interesting in terms of balance are articles like this one calling his work a "load of bollocks". I think it would be good for there to be a balanced source on his notable yet controversial 'work', rather than no source at all. New Media Theorist ( talk) 03:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now but draft and userfy if needed as I'm not seeing much to convince to even weak keep as I found hardly much aside from passing mentions at Books, News, browser and Highbeam. If this can be better improved, feel free but I'm not seeing much to convince me at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from more participants. sst ✈ 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Author of books with very little significance -- most have only 5 or so holdings in worldcat. His stem cell book has 37 holdings, which for a popular science work on this topics is insignificant also. Google Scholar shows some early papers on algae if it's the same person, and it might be because of a previous fad in the use of algae in human nutrition. Doesn't raise to the level of notability here either. No academic position that I can trace. Not just delete for now, but delete. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jay-P

AfDs for this article:
Jay-P (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still not WP:MUSIC. Overly promotional article on rapper lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. No good charting, gold, rotation, major awards. Charting mention are bad charts and are not verified. Award mentioned is minor and not verified. Like last time the article is bombarded with sources but none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. The source claimed as CNN is from CNN ireport where users can post articles and is not by CNN and is not veted by them. The MTV source is not by them, it's "content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form." In this case Jay-P's official biography. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The Hollybush, Stockton Brook

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

I notice a lot of articles for British pubs but I'm not seeing anything to suggest better notability and improvement to this with my best search results here, here and here so unless this is locally significant and notable, their website seems to have changed to something Chinese and the pub still seems to be open albeit several changes (such as becoming an Italian place) the past few years. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Can't find anything to distinguish this from thousands of other pub/restaurants in the UK. In most cases, pubs have articles because the building is historic, listed or otherwise notable. I can't find any evidence that this is the case here. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing in searches shows how this particular pub is notable. Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Åke Raask

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

Questionably notable and my searches found nothing better than this so unless archived sources can be found and are enough, there's nothing to suggest obvious improvement for this article existing since March and April 2005 ( Ake Raask would also have to be deleted). SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches did not turn up anything on the subject which meets the notability criteria for either WP:NFICT or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Trance Around the World

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

fails GNG. also NOTADVERT / PROMO. Widefox; talk 01:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. samtar ( msg) 08:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now unless it can actually be improved as all I found was some links at Books, News and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they meet notability criteria. Some hits, but not enough in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Group Therapy Radio

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

fails GNG Widefox; talk 02:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now and draft & userfy if anyone wants as although I found some links at Books, News and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I also can not find reliable sources.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

William Larned Mercy Pendleton

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

It's difficult to find information about this painter, and it looks like he just wasn't/isn't historically notable. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 02:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I tried a search without his middle names and came up with some refs that confirm his existence as apainter, and a few images: a) page with a bio that matches the wiki article, b) a google book mention that has him copying a painting for the city of Philadelphia, c) A google books ref that looks like a record of painting in the State of Virginia's inventory, likely the painting hanging in the Virginia State Supreme court mentioned in the previous ref, and d) another google books ref calling him a painter and describing his work. That's enough to swing it to Keep for me. If I can find four mentions in digitized sources for someone who died a hundred and fifty years ago, there have to be a lot more in print sources. New Media Theorist ( talk) 06:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete' - I was patrolling articles and came across this one and would have added a speedy deletion tag if it had not already been tagged by the great editor before me. There is no indication as to why this living person is notable.  ' Olowe2011 Talk 00:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Olowe2011, you missed an important fact in your analysis: he is dead. Birth date was 1865. New Media Theorist ( talk) 03:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
'Response: New Media Theorist The article says was so I assumed they had pasted away. But thanks for teaching me the value of not assuming things.  ' Olowe2011 Talk 03:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - "for someone who died a hundred and fifty years ago"? Well, he was born 150 years ago, he died in 1934. Bolding whole trivial comments? Please read WP:AFDFORMAT. The middle names are misspelled, the painter was named after his grandfather William Learned Marcy. Kraxler ( talk) 02:50, 2 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! 07:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  18:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mickey DeLorenzo

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

At worst, the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Main coverage is [58] [59] and apart from that, just passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. At best, he's still a WP:BLP1E and his press coverage is limited exclusively to his Wii exercise experiment. He is not known outside this one event. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. –  czar 05:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as the best I found for him was one Books link. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Wii Fit: The two sources presented by nom should be enough to make a mention of the real-life benefits of the game in the article. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:24, 1 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! 07:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I didn't think the articles covered him in depth enough to warrant a redirect. It's not going to be a common search term for the Wii Fit and I don't see how info about him (by name) could be added without being trivia. czar 03:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
This post on a Philadelphia newspaper blog seems good since the author is a writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, another article from a community newspaper there, and Fox all talk about him in-depth. There are also smaller mentions in The Washington Post, Time Magazine, IGN, and a number of others. In other words, there are good articles out there, they just weren't actually in our article.
As far as a merge goes, I think with as well-documented as this is, it wouldn't be crufty to mention it in passing. I'm not sure it's enough for a full article like Jared Fogle has, but notable nonetheless. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Predikto

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. None of the claimed 'awards and recognition' are notable. The bulk of sources available are press releases, reprints of press releases or common reporting on funding or contract awards. Jbh Talk 03:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 03:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I'm not seeing anything obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 11:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails to meet notability criteria. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 15:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'. Unfortunately for the one keep voter, their argument is a variation on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Drmies ( talk) 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ole Miss–Tennessee football rivalry

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

The Ole Miss-Tennessee college football game series is not notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage -- as a traditional college football rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Instances of mainstream coverage in reliable sources of this purported "rivalry" are trivial, and any significant coverage of this series as a rivalry is only found on fan sites, blogs and other non-reliable or non-independent sources that are not suitable for establishing notability per GNG. The independence and reliability of sources mentioning this series as a "rivalry" will be a key aspect in this discussion: if sources are not independent (no athletic department releases, yearbooks, school newspapers, etc.) and reliable (no blogs, fansites, etc.), they cannot be used to sustain the subject's notability. Any mentions of this series as a rivalry in mainstream news sources should be substantial, i.e., not trivial mentions of a "rivalry," but substantial discussions of the series' history, traditions, and significance as a "rivalry". This article was previously submitted for proposed deletion per WP:PROD on October 2nd, but the article creator removed the PROD tag without explanation on October 5th. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Here are some relevant key word searches:

  • "Ole Miss-Tennessee football rivalry" (Google search): [60] 11 hits for quoted phrase, all Wikipedia article or process pages, or mirror articles/pages;
  • "Ole Miss Tennessee football rivalry" (Google search): [61] 10 hits for quoted phase, all Wikipedia article or process pages, or mirror articles/pages;
  • "Ole Miss-Tennessee rivalry" (Google search): 0 hits for quoted phrase;
  • "Ole Miss Tennessee rivalry" (Google search): 0 hits for quoted phrase.

These are are good places for AfD discussion participants' to begin their WP:BEFORE due diligence. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of substantive, much less significant, coverage in independent reliable sources, hence failling WP:GNG. No special claim of notability is made. All of the sources are blogs, non-reliable or non-independent sources. Doubtless sources could be added to verify the scores and dates of the games, but those would not add toward notability of the rivalry. Old newspapers via Google and via Newspaper Archives Online don't seem to regard this as a "rivalry". Unlike the Mississippi–Mississippi State football rivalry or the Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry, which, by the way, is sorely lacking in citation to independent, reliable sources, for which newspaper articles detailing the rivalry can be found. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Bejnar: The Auburn-Tennessee rivalry article is on my list of rivalry articles to review for notability. As a threshold matter, however, Auburn-Tennessee was recognized by southeastern sports commentators of as one of the better SEC annual home-and-away series that got dumped when the SEC expanded and went to divisional play in 1992. (The other was Auburn-Florida, which ceased to be annual in 2002). I have seen numerous mentions of the Auburn-Tennessee series as a traditional "rivalry," certainly more so than this one, but it remains to be seen if it would survive GNG scrutiny. Some of these old CFB series, including this one, require a considerable amount of WP:BEFORE background research in Newspapers.com, Google News Archive, Google Books, etc., before nominating one for AfD. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
In doing my due diligence for this Afd, the rivalries that came up most often were the Mississippi–Mississippi State football rivalry and the Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry. I agree that sometimes background research is tedious, the more so as it tends towards comprehensiveness. I would suggest to CollegeRivalry that he or she obtain a subscription to Newspaper Archives Online, often free at larger public libraries, or physically visit the morgues (newspaper archives at the newspaper) of relevant newspapers, and find citations to independent sources prior to writing new articles. Magazines such as Time and Newsweek used to have an occasional story on college football rivalries in their sports section. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Frankly, I wouldn't dream of starting a new CFB rivalry article without sourcing it in depth. Of course, all of the established rivalries I would want to work on already have articles. If you want to see examples of properly sourced CFB rivalry articles, take a look at Auburn–Florida football rivalry and Florida–Georgia football rivalry and their footnotes; for unquestionably notable rivalries, there are usually multiple feature articles in newspapers and sports magazines, as well as stand-alone books about the specific rivalry. These rivalry AfDs drive me nuts because people will find a 1935 newspaper article that mentions an "annual rivalry" and then argue that as the basis for something meaningful. Part of the problem is many AfD participants don't agree on what constitutes "significant coverage." Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Winsipedia is not a reliable source, and the only other source is an ESPN article that does not contain the word "rivalry" at all. This looks like original research to me, but if it's not it still doesn't pass WP:GNG or any other notability guideline I can find.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. In addition to Dirtlawyer's research, I conducted a number of searches on newspapers.com and found nothing treating the Tennessee - Ole Miss series as a rivalry, and certainly nothing with any depth. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Weren't these two teams part of the 1969 "Mule Game"? I that could be the rivalry that has since faded. MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 06:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
MurderByDeadcopy is referring to the November 15, 1969 game in which Mississippi trounced Tennessee 38 to 0. There was a lot of excitment before that game because Tennessee was ranked #3 in the nation. -- Bejnar ( talk) 08:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The background is that coach Johnny Vaught trolled his own players (to motivate them) by having a plane drop leaflets over the Ole Miss practice field that said " Archie Who?" and quoted the UT player who compared Ole Miss to a "bunch of mules" when asked by a reporter if Ole Miss had "a bunch of horses?" Classic bulletin board game, fun SEC history game, mention belongs in the 1969 season articles. Still not a classic traditional rivalry though. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I'd also say many "classic" rivalries come and go. Is wiki getting rid of history because it cannot be found online? Good info on a subject such as this may be more difficult to discover. Florida at one time always played Miami as their first game of the year which gave that game a sense of rivalry. Then it was changed in 1987 and gone was that intense conflict between those two (oddly enough that rivalry is on wiki [62]). I genuinely laugh (and also am a bit sad) when articles end up in AFD without being given some time to grow. Sure, if an article's a commercial or completely laughable (even those sometimes don't get deleted [63]), but this article is neither. I, also, strongly believe that before anyone ever creates an article, they should spend time in AFD. It's given me a very cynical viewpoint on the subject. MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 16:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree rivalries come and go, and assume we are fine with rivalries of a more historical than contemporary significance. e. g. 1, 2, 3. The problem is whether said historical rivalry meets the notability criteria, and whether every regular, conference opponent constitutes a "rivalry." I have mixed feelings about this rivalry too, and thus have left myself out of the voting part. Cake ( talk) 03:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep After finding the Miami vs Florida rivalry on wiki [64] (which really surprised me), I strongly believe that this article is just as notable! Yep, I'm going against the grain on this one (even though I realize which way this will go seeing as whom I'm up against), but I'm sticking my neck out on this one anyway. Wikipedia is so fickle when it comes to applying its own rules! MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 18:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/20/georgia-tech-tennessee-confirmed-for-2017-chick-fil-a-kickoff-game/
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_October_10&oldid=1142624492"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 October 11 October >

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 redirect to Rome City School District. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Rome Middle School

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

Another middle school without clear notability. Should be redirected to or merged with Rome City School District. Jacona ( talk) 23:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
  • Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing redirection/merger rather than deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, of course. Primary and middle schools are only deleted if they cannot be verified and are normally redirected to the school district or locality article. Take a look at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for more information on how this is handled, and visit the category "Redirects from school articles" for an indication of just how common this is. I did err, however, in not simply redirecting the article. My apologies. It's here now, so we should probably go ahead and discuss it. Jacona ( talk) 12:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hisako Kanemoto. Was going to re-list, due to the sparse commentary, but even though only two have weighed in, clearly this is something which should be redirected. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 15:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Fantastic Voyage (J-Pop album)

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

Just a list of album tracks all sourced to Rechoku (an online music retail site). No indication of any in-depth coverage, so this article unfortunately fails the basic notability criteria at WP:NALBUMS. DAJF ( talk) 22:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DAJF ( talk) 22:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

RC Plane 2

RC Plane 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced; insufficient reviews in vetted vg reliable sources to write a full article. No suitable redirect targets. czar 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I think the page shouldn't be deleted because it gives the reader basic information about the game and has refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetfighterace212 ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, but that's not much of a reason to keep it. Drmies ( talk) 03:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unsourced, and I can't find anything besides bloggy reviews--the usual web stuff for something like that. That one "reference" is not a reference at all: it's a link to the store (and I'm going to remove it). Drmies ( talk) 03:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per Drmies, there are no WP:RS to be found to support this article. Zpeopleheart ( talk) 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom, Drmies and Zpeopleheart. Searches did not turn up enough to support that it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 15:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Principle of Evil Marksmanship

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

Needs a new set of eyes, previous AfD closed as no consensus in 2006. Lack of significant, reliable, independent coverage. Take out the original research and it's little more than a definition from a dictionary with other non-notable terms [1]. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 21:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article does not have any significant secondary coverage at all, so fails WP:GNG. Beyond that it exhibits extremely strong signs of Original research by synthesis by adding footnotes to several sources as "evidence" even though those sources don't refer to this phrase, or else refer to another concept that seemed similar to this in the eyes of the editor. The only seemingly strong citations are to the "Inverse Ninja Law"...which is not what this article is about. - Markeer 00:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was , as the consensus seems clear, redirect to Fairbanks, Alaska until a better article can be achieved (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Fairbanks Police Department

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

This article fails to be notable. Also, local police departments are not encyclopedia material. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 17:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Delete is my vote, obviously. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Unless the police department has done something notable historically, that is. I wouldn't suggest cleaning away LAPD's history of racism or corruption, for example. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If not independently notable, then Merge to Fairbanks, Alaska, which presently has no mention of the city's police department. This would serve to enhance the merge target article. North America 1000 22:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with this, on both counts. A merge seems good. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 12:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I imagine there is a lot more to say about this subject and was surprised to find it so short. Merging/redirecting to the article on the city seems reasonable unless and until this can be expanded into a proper article. Beeblebrox ( talk) 13:39, 12 October 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 delete. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

FidoNet Star Wars Echo

AfDs for this article:
FidoNet Star Wars Echo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant, reliable, independent sources, I don't think that TheForce.Net can count for this. Previous AfD was kept in 2009 and tagged for sources which still seem to be none. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. While probably significant to participants and a select group of Star Wars fans, I find no evidence it achieved much attention by reliable, independent, third-party sources, per WP:GNG. TheForce.net may be somewhat independent, but I don't think they have an established reputation for editorial discretion and fact-checking per WP:NEWSORG, and in any case a single source generally isn't sufficient to establish notability. I find it gets mentioned as existing in a sentence in this book, but existence does not equal notability. The previous Afd had 3 keeps (two of them weaks), were based on "it's interesting" and "needs better citations", but none better have been found. Note that deletion from Wikipedia doesn't mean obliteration from the internet, as a nearly identical article is at Star Wars Wikia, which is where in-universe lore and fan trivia may flourish, more power to them. --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete really per Animalparty's cogent discussion. Drmies ( talk) 03:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi-Rez (rapper)

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

Article about rapper which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Searches bring up nothing to indicate notability worth inclusion at Wikipedia. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 19:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as although I haven't started looking closely, this seems obvious and with chances there is no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 09:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Christian Exodus

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

Wikipedia's policies state "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This organization is insignificant in that it lasted a very short time, ceased to exist in 2008, and there has been no coverage in reliable sources since 2007. Other than generate some news articles, it did absolutely nothing. Notability policies also state "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be...." There certainly has been no sustained coverage of this organization and it rightly can be considered a brief flash in the plan. It is not notable. JimTwiki ( talk) 18:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- As I read it, this was a small organization with big plans, from which it achieved little - the relocation of 15 families. That strikes me as a classic case of NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete User:Peterkingiron pegs it. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete until this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Broad consensus to delete--and no one even invoked BLP1E. Drmies ( talk) 03:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Anne D'Evergroote

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep It's not constructive to nominate every one of these articles for deletion. Anne D'Evergroote, like most articles you're nominating, at time of death held the title of "Oldest person ever". If she was simply some old woman at the time of her death, that'd be one of thing, but she's more than that. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
It's not constructive to recreate articles that have been redirected and deleted by consensus without adding anything new to them. There's nothing in Wikipedia's criteria that says being the oldest person in the world is notable in and of itself, thus we look for non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources, which does not appear to exist in this case. Canadian Paul 18:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
It'd be one thing for her to be oldest living person at time of death, but that's not the case here. When she died, she was the oldest person ever. No one had ever surpassed her in age, she was literally the Jeanne Calment of her time. It wasn't until later that someone was able to surpass her in age. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
To quote an IP for the first nom of Pierre Darcourt, ""I suggest - retain this article; this man was the oldest human ever, for a good number of years (based on present knowledge, which is fallible and incomplete). I propose retaining this article, at least until his age is proven incorrect - and exaggerated; or until there is proof of an earlier person older than he. As the 'oldest ever' he will be one of a very small number - possibly fewer than a dozen - Plante, Darcourt, Peters (or D'Evergroote and Boomgard), Filkins, Graham, Izumi - or Williams (and White), and Calment. Eleven in all, some not totally convincingly verified - but Darcourt was! Keep this article." DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

At the time of her death she was literally the oldest person ever, don't you think that's notable? DN-boards1 ( talk) 20:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Christ, how many of these permastubs are there? EEng ( talk) 13:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG. Age does not confer notability. Jbh Talk 20:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even the guidelines at WP:WOP state that merely getting old comes under the rules for 'single event' notability. And here, I'm not seeing a good redirect. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Gone in a minute

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

Non-notable program, no significant coverage found in reliable, third party sources per WP:GNG. --Animalparty! ( talk) 18:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No indication GNG is met. Drmies ( talk) 03:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Problem for the supporters is they don't actually present any argument other than "this person is notable". Drmies ( talk) 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Pierre Darcourt

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia.. Canadian Paul 18:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep You just revealed you're copying and pasting the same damn thing to every article's AfD. Pierre Darcourt was male, for one thing, and is most certainly notable - he is the first man to have ever reached the age of 108. For about a century he was the oldest man ever, at time of death he was oldest person ever, and he took the maximum lifespan for males from 103 (which had been set by Ferdinand Ashmall) to 108. He added 5 years to the maximum male lifespan ON HIS OWN, basically. He's most certainly notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

You're right I am, because they're all eligible for deletion based upon the same rationale. That's why almost all of these were redirected and deleted by consensus in the past. Canadian Paul 18:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
But Pierre Darcourt may be the most notable of the ones you've nominated (sans Augusta Holtz and Fannie Thomas) yet. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
And just for the record, this article has been nominated before, and last time, it was decided to be kept, yet somehow it got deleted without any consensus whatsoever. The first person to reach the age of 108 is notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
In fact, to quote an IP at the last AfD for this, "I suggest - retain this article; this man was the oldest human ever, for a good number of years (based on present knowledge, which is fallible and incomplete). I propose retaining this article, at least until his age is proven incorrect - and exaggerated; or until there is proof of an earlier person older than he. As the 'oldest ever' he will be one of a very small number - possibly fewer than a dozen - Plante, Darcourt, Peters (or D'Evergroote and Boomgard), Filkins, Graham, Izumi - or Williams (and White), and Calment. Eleven in all, some not totally convincingly verified - but Darcourt was! Keep this article." DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. And, just for the record, just because it was previously deleted does not mean that it should not be deleted now. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I've added another RS, just so you know. DN-boards1 ( talk) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Pierre Joseph Darcourt is just THE benchmark for the great longevity in first documented time. He's the first known person to turn 108, still one of oldest men ever in Belgium, and possibly the oldest person at his death. He's notable by quoting in some articles about longevity, and was known at the time of his death as the oldest on belgian centenarians' censuses. Also, one of his discoverers, Mr. Michel Poulain, disclosed that he was born and died in the town of Audregnies. Archives online supports the longevity claim, and he's validated by GRG. We can't do more reliable. -- LC-Barti ( talk) 23:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — LC-Barti ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep – per consensus at the previous afd. Oculi ( talk) 02:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Even if notable, WP:NOPAGE applies. EEng ( talk) 14:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even the guidelines at WP:WOP state that merely getting old comes under the rules for 'single event' notability. And here, I'm not seeing a good redirect. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Augustine Tessier

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep She stands out more than the other ones....She was the oldest nun ever, at time of death, was oldest French person ever recorded, etc. She's most certainly notable for holding four longevity titles at time of death - Oldest nun ever, oldest Frenchwoman ever, oldest living person, and oldest living woman. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
None of which grants her notability based on Wikipedia's criteria. Canadian Paul 18:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
How is the oldest nun ever not notable? DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Because Wikipedia does not have a criteria that declares that the oldest nun ever is automatically notable. Canadian Paul 18:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

She's no longer the oldest nun ever, it seems someone has beaten her at that: [2]. But still, there she is in GWR. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nuns should beat schoolchildren, not one another. EEng ( talk) 14:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Fannie Thomas

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep This one can't be argued. At time of death, she was LITERALLY THE OLDEST PERSON TO HAVE EVER LIVED, and her article is...well, an actual article, rather than a stub. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
None of which has any bearing on notability, per Wikipedia's criteria. Canadian Paul 18:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
It in fact does have bearing. Is Jeanne Calment notable purely for her longevity? Indeed. She's most known for being currently the oldest person ever. Before her it was Shigechiyo Izumi, before him Martha Graham, then Augusta Holtz, Mathew Beard, then Fannie Thomas, etc. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You didn't give me a chance to PROVE her notability. You shuffled the AfD along within a day of the article's creation. Thomas is one of a handful of people to have ever been the oldest person ever, she's notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The GRG list of "oldest people titleholders" from Betsy Baker to Besse Cooper (up to 2012) lists her: [3]. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The result and implications of the Koto Okubo AfD are being misrepresented and used as a tool to unfairly override long-standing consensus. The general consensus for a long time seems to be that World's oldest people and World's oldest men titleholders are notable enough for a standalone article. Koto Okubo's case was different and unusual, however: firstly, she was never the world's oldest person (only the world's oldest woman). Secondly, she received an unusually small attention from the media, hence there really wasn't much to write a biography about. For Fannie Thomas, this is a bit different. The article needs a cleanup and more sources might exist in the archives but it shouldn't be deleted. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 17:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete "She was a former suffragette,[clarification needed].[1] In 1900, she opened a millinery store in Colorado Springs.[1] In 1918 she moved to Twin Falls, Idaho, then to Los Angeles in the 1920s" is not notability material. EEng ( talk) 14:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955 NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ellen Dart

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article contains trivial information. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Joe Thomas (supercentenarian)

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The person was indeed the oldest living person at time of death. The articles of more recent WOP (world's oldest people) aren't up for grabs, so why is this different. Also, nominator has literally nominated about 30 such articles, I don't consider that very helpful. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

No I "literally" haven't. This article is different for the reasons discussed above. Canadian Paul 18:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes you have, if you read the word literally figuratively. EEng ( talk) 22:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe we could userfy this until I can provide enough RSes? DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Maybe we can concentrate on notable subjects, especially those covered in existing articles? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Or we can be constructive and let me work on making it meet notability guidelines? DN-boards1 ( talk) 03:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete EEng ( talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This article has only one reference, a "source" that has nothing in common with the reliable sources required by policy. The subject is not notable in the sense that this term is defined in Wikipedia's policies. We have a single sentence that focuses on the subject as a contestant in some mythical competition to be the oldest person on earth. He won, briefly. Hooray! Except, of course, that we then have a second sentence that is nearly inscrutable, contradicts the first sentence, and seems to violate the wiki-policy against disclaimers. Really, what is one supposed to make of this: "(Note: this is a retroactive reconstruction of history. In reality, the Joe Thomas case was not verified until July 2002 by the SSA study, and Guinness did not recuperate the "oldest living man" category until 2000)." David in DC ( talk) 18:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living men since 1973 NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Josep Armengol Jover

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep They were indeed notable, they were at time of death oldest living person. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Not according to Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Canadian Paul 18:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I have a solution. We can userfy all of these that have been nominated. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Henri Pérignon

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Person was world's oldest for a time, therefore is notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Not according to Wikipedia's notability standards. Canadian Paul 18:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's a bunch of RSes:

[5] Unfortunately, that's it. Perignon was oldest living man for....8 days. Not much time to cover him. "Oldest living man is now...Oh wait, he died." DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Zero sources. EEng ( talk) 14:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Gut feelings are a source aren't they not? 166.170.50.162 ( talk) 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Didn't he invent a terrific champagne or something? EEng ( talk) 22:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jean Teillet

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 20:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Nothing there as usual. EEng ( talk) 14:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Kensley

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep I'm sure I can find some RSes to expand the article. I think it's notable, as she was literally in Guinness World Records IIRC. I think that yes, she's notable, just as much as Jeralean Talley is. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm running out of ways to say "nonnotable". EEng ( talk) 14:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This person might belong on one or more of the many longevity related lists, but there are no references on this page. There's an assertion of recognition by Guinness, but even if true (which WP:AGF requires that we assume) a single mention by Guinness hardly constitutes notability as that term is defined in our policies. The entirety of this stub simply says that this person lived to be this very advanced age, and thereby became a "record-holder." It goes on to note other old people who held the "title" either as what hobbyists call "successors" or "predecessors". Human longevity is an encyclopedic topic. But individual long-lived people are not notable for holding mythical championships. Some long-lived people are, no doubt, notable for our purposes. Our policies identify them as subjects who have been covered in multiple, independent WP:reliable sources. Ms. Kensley carries none of the indicia of notability. David in DC ( talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955 NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Marie Bernátková

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep It actually has a LOT to do with notability, and we wouldn't be discussing, for instance, the notability of Jeralean Talley. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Talley has non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources and therefore satisfies WP:N. Bernátková does not. Canadian Paul 18:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Oldest Czechoslovakian ever, only known Czechoslovakian supercentenarian, only known Czech and only known Slovak supercentenarian. Marie is notable. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Again, not by Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Canadian Paul 18:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "the exact date of her death is not known; probably it was lost in turmoil following Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in August 1968. Since Czechoslovakia is now dissolved, Bernátkova is their only citizen to ever hold that title." Speculation and trivia, and one likely-non-RS. EEng ( talk) 14:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Oldness alone is not notable. This article seems to me to fall in the same category that Gertrude Stein once attributed to Oakland. There's no "there" there. David in DC ( talk) 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Czech supercentenarians NewYorkActuary ( talk) 22:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Found a better target for redirect ... Oldest people#Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955 NewYorkActuary ( talk) 23:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Augusta Holtz

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

The subject of this article to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards (also based on long-term consensus, including most recently the redirecting of this World's oldest person). Thus we default to the general notability guidelines, which require widespread non-trivial coverage. Since she was only "verified" nearly three decades after her death, it's not surprising that she received little coverage, much of which came at her death, and thus any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep She was the first person verified to have reached the age of 115, so that adds to her notability. The fact she was world's oldest living person helps, too. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — DN-boards1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    Not according to Wikipedia's criterion for notability. Canadian Paul 17:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Mathew Beard is notable for reaching 114, so why wouldn't Holtz be notable for reaching 115? DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CommanderLinx ( talk) 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) — CommanderLinx ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    In this case, it's more RELATEDSTUFFEXISTS. DN-boards1 ( talk) 18:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Wait, was she the first or the second person to reach 115? If she was the second person to reach 115, does that still make her notable to you? It doesn't matter as I removed that since there's no citation for it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    She was the first person to reach 115 who was known at the time, the first person to actually reach it was not even uncovered until this year, said person died in 1977. Holtz is also the 32nd oldest person who ever lived. She's in the top 50 oldest people ever. DN-boards1 ( talk) 04:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article contains trivial information. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Augusta Holtz is the VERY FIRST person documented to have EVER reached the age of 115. Don't you think such an achievement makes her notable? Being the first person to survive to be 115? DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
This issue of notability is not for us to decide. It is a matter of what others say, as demonstrated in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That is Wiki's policy. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Another RS, her obituary: [6] DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Really? So everybody with an obituary is notable? Well, that is certainly an inclusive definition of "notable"! Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
No, I was providing an obituary as an RS. Notice that it mentions she was the oldest living human. In addition, the forum "The 110 Club" is affiliated with the Gerontology Research Group, an organization that is the primary longevity investigator. Most longevity claims are verified or debunked by them, and they and Guinness are our primary sources. The 110 Club is a forum they use to verify or debunk stuff, there's a thread discussing Augusta Holtz in there. DN-boards1 ( talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NOPAGE. EEng ( talk) 11:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The result and implications of the Koto Okubo AfD are being misrepresented and used as a tool to unfairly override long-standing consensus. The general consensus for a long time seems to be that World's oldest people and World's oldest men titleholders are notable enough for a standalone article. Koto Okubo's case was different and unusual, however: firstly, she was never the world's oldest person (only the world's oldest woman). Secondly, she received an unusually small attention from the media, hence there really wasn't much to write a biography about. For Augusta Holtz, this is a bit different. There are enough reliably sourced details and more sources may exist in the archives (remember she died 30 years ago). -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 17:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
WP:BURDEN of proof is on you. Can you provide these sources? Because I think keeping an article on the basis that sources "might" exist is a very poor argument. CommanderLinx ( talk) 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, I can, and I've added some them to the article. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] All from when she was alive. Ollie231213 ( talk) 23:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. All useful information about her (name, age country, oldest living person) is all conveniently located in Oldest people and other longevity articles. Unless new sources appear that demonstrate notability, she belongs on a list. CommanderLinx ( talk) 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are three "sources" cited on the page. Two are GRG pages that have already been rejected as WP:Reliable sources on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and the third is a single Associated Press obit. Isambard has it exactly right: "As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject...." The notion that "record-holders" are inherently notable is not in any way a policy-based assertion. Indeed that notion is precisely the problem in this suite of articles. David in DC ( talk) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
1. It's not correct to say that the GRG pages have been rejected as WP:Reliable sources. To my knowledge, only Table EE was deemed unreliable.
2. I've added more sources, which no one else could be bothered to look for (seemingly would rather just delete than try to improve).
3. "The notion that "record-holders" are inherently notable is not in any way a policy-based assertion." ---> There's a reason why longevity record holders are frequently reported on by the media: because being the oldest person in the world, out of several billion, is a remarkable thing. On the contrary, some people recently seem to be pushing the idea that "people can't be notable for longevity and I don't care what you say la la la", as evidenced by these AfD's. [12] [13] [14] [15] That's the real problem with these articles. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

*Keep This is comparable to nominating Misao Okawa for deletion...Oh wait, that happened. What? Okay, now I'm laughing uncontrollably. -- 2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 ( talk) 23:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet of User:DN-boards1 who already voted above. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Christopher Rage

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

Completely unsourced biography of a pornographic film actor, making no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:PORNBIO. He might be notable for having later been a director and producer of films for his own production company, but that would still depend on reliable source coverage and does not give him a "because he existed" freebie if adequate sourcing isn't there to get him past WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No WP:RS 2A02:C7D:5D30:8800:B8FF:3F79:468:521E ( talk) 17:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 20:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment While I'm not familiar with the Rage or gay porn, he has quite a few hits on Google books where he has been described as "very famous" 1 and a "pioneer filmmaker" 2. The article creator has done an abysmal job sourcing the articles he's done, but this one is probably notable enough to keep. Wikiuser20102011 ( talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I found some sources [16] [17] and brief mentions of him in two books [18] [19], but this actor fails WP:PORNBIO and I believe that it fails WP:GNG as well. GNG assumes notability if the person "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Are there sources? Yes. Secondary, independent, and reliable sources? Yes. But... is there significant coverage? ...significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content?" The answer to this is no. Absolutely not. The sources I found outside of IMDB were simple mentions of his name in two novels about gay pornographic films and acting; they did not significantly cover him in-depth. In fact, they didn't cover him much at all. I took a look at both of the Google Books sources provided by Wikiuser20102011, and they also mention the actor's name once and do not provide any kind of in-depth significant coverage. Therefore, I believe that this actor does not have significant coverage, and hence fails WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Frank Vickers

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

Completely unsourced biography of a pornographic film actor, which makes no particular claim of notability for anything that would pass WP:PORNBIO. The strongest claim of notability here, in actual fact, is his winning of an unnamed and likely non-notable regional bodybuilding competition in 1982 — but as weak as that claim is, an earlier speedy nomination was actually declined on that basis. But it's still not nearly strong enough to make an article permanently keepable if it's the best you can do for notability, and if the reliable source coverage is sitting at zero. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I tagged this for an A7 speedy. No credible claim for passing PORNBIO. This "cult figure" lacks substantial coverage by any reliable sources. All I could find is a passing mention in a book and an apparent advertisement in The Advocate. Winning a local/regional bodybuilding contest brings up nothing in searches. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • comment I declined the A7 speedy and I would again. A "tri-state" contest would be at least regional. Lots of statements that do not establish notability or even come close still are credible claims of significance. Someone who was active largely in a somewhat niche area in the 1980s may well have sources, but not online. On the other hand, as per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the person creating the article, or of anyone who wants it kept, to provide those sources, or at least an indication of where they might be found. DES (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • further comment Bearcat, I notice that you did not notify the article creator, User:EliteShadowHunter, of this discussion. Please include such notification as part of an AfD nomination in future. I believe that Twinkle normally does this, but if you use another tool that does not notify, or if you nominate manually, please notify manually. Also, did, you do an independent search for sources, as specified by WP:BEFORE? DES (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Bearcat's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 23:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Star Wars Action News

AfDs for this article:
Star Wars Action News (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant, reliable coverage. Previous AfD closed as no consensus, last commenter there lists unreliable sources and non-notable awards Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 16:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm seeing valuable information and the organization being used as a resource by lots of others, most notably The Washington Post. — Cirt ( talk) 09:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Barely passes WP:GNG, imho, with the references I'm seeing on Google News, but definitely passes WP:BASIC. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Cirt, Onel5969, All of the GNews sources ( [20] 24 results for "star wars action news" right now) look like insignificant coverage or otherwise can't be used to establish notability to me, starting with the WP: [21] part of the host's review of the BB-8 toy, similar parts for The Verge, Engadget, and Wired, his involvement was only for an opinion on the toy. [22] their facebook announcement that an AMC manager confirmed a Star Wars movie marathon(movie hype), I'd say it's more about Star Wars and AMC than SWAN, looks like they were at the right place at the right time, doesn't say why the manager told SWAN so it's implied that that doesn't matter, what the announcement says is what they care about, and be aware of the many similar posts of this information ( [23] [24] [25] [26]). [27] a few sentences on how Star Wars Action news is a precursor to their Now Playing Podcast. [28] it's about the husband and wife, 1st page mentions their podcast on collecting, SWAN, and also their Now Playing podcast(same sentence), 2nd page has nothing, 3rd page has a sentence on it. Two (could argue 1.5) sentences in three pages is insignificant. [29] movie hype(read the title), about the trailer, Abrams teasing, and that they found posters on SWAN FB, and then describe the posters, seems like an obligatory mention. [30] list of some of Comic Con's attendees, point of the story would be the same if they chose to list another group instead. [31] the rest seem to be sources like " Bleeding Cool News" aside from being unreliable, this one is also more about the Now Playing podcast if you read the title and SWAN is mentioned as a precursor again. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 18:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't have access to HighBeam, so I can't view the source you added. I couldn't find the whole documentary online but I found the "Celebration trailer" for it, he and is wife are on from 2:53 - 4:10 on the second video, about 15 minutes total [32] [33]. But many other people have parts in it too, and it's not like this documentary got major recognition.
Getting different search results under that term, but I'm not finding any significant, reliable coverage about Star Wars Action News. Could you link some of the sources you found here? Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Pixelkin

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

NN gaming website. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 15:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 15:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

SALTR

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

NN company lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources ( ?) (enough to build a full article). No suitable merge targets. czar 15:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While this seems to describe both company and product, I found no good results for either. Since I could not find any verifiable sources ( WP:Verifiability), barely any reliable ones ( WP:Reliable Sources), and got the sense that this did not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia ( WP:NOTADIR), I never reached the step of applying the policy for organizational notability WP:CORP (a subjective and questionable exercise in any event).-- 69.204.153.39 ( talk) 19:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - you get many hits on this name, but not for this company. A few brief mentions, not enough to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 TT me 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I haven't looked at this closely but the case seems apparently obvious with this being a new company with unlikely chances of getting enough coverage for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Typeeto

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

NN software. No reviews from major software pubs. Sourced exclusively to unreliable blogs without hallmarks of editorial quality. No worthwhile redirects. czar 15:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 15:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I ran through the requisite links to look for mentions, but I needn't have done that. The article is rather well cited, considering the field. It's often hard to judge the notability of blogs, as the nominator points out. But since LifeHacker and Product Hunt are deemed notable and such for Wikipedia, I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for WP:Verifiability and general independent editorial content. There's then a debate over what might make this notable, but I think it just hits that bar for that. -- 69.204.153.39 ( talk) 20:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia deletion policy requires pursuing diligent alternatives to deletion before an AfD request can be made. This is POLICY and is not optional. This cart is therefore before the horse. Checkingfax ( talk) 03:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
What alternative are you suggesting that was neglected? And what is your actual argument for keeping it? There isn't any good place to redirect it. czar 12:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Alternatives to deletion:

Main page: [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]]
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles.

Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.

A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. Tags however are not intended as permanent solution; they are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems. Tags are listed here. Some of the more common ones include:

{{cleanup}} for poor writing
{{expert-subject}} for articles needing expert attention
{{notenglish}} for articles written in a foreign language
{{npov}} for bias
{{stub}} for a short article
{{refimprove}} for lack of verifiability
{{merge}} for a small article that could be merged into a larger one
Cheers! ... Checkingfax ( Talk ) 10:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
That doesn't answer my question. czar 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". ... Checkingfax ( Talk ) 14:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I would like to mention that LifeHacker and Product Hunt are notable and reliable sources. As well as iFun.de and AppleSfera (I added this source today to the article) are well known sources in German and Spanish correspondingly. If this is still not enough, please let me know how can I improve the article more. Thanks DashaG11 ( talk) 07:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • To review those two sources being referenced: This is the LifeHacker—it's fine but it's a paragraph. But the Product Hunt page doesn't even have any official text... so there's nothing to use as a source apart from user-submitted (unreliable) information. (A source is reliable not because it has a WP page but because it has editorial control.) The foreign language posts, if even reliable, are repackaged press releases with no commentary or "review". I'd also like to remind anyone participating in AfD that if they have a potential affiliation or conflict of interest with the subject they're writing about, they should be disclosing as much on the article's talk page. czar 12:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • CNET good? It's not longform, but with enough mining from that and the Lifehacker source the article could get developed enough for a weak keep. Another from Technology Personalized, which seems to have an established staff. 23W 16:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ 23W, CNET would be good, but it's a duplicate of the Lifehacker source (and says so). And I don't think Technology Personalized is reliable, despite the peacocking on their staff page. czar 14:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep likely and I was about to close it as such but I'll simply comment for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Cool Math

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It didn't have any in-depth hits in several database and custom Google searches. Are there any secondary source articles that discuss the site at all? There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't find anything beyond mentions in reliable sources. Sam Walton ( talk) 15:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Probably. I consider myself new because I rarely edit Wikipedia, but I see the problem with my article. I though it might be safe because of Cool Math Game's Alexa rank, but I guess not. The Amazing Matt ( talk) 15:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm withholding my decision for the moment. Because of the commonality of the name, the searches are a bit onerous. However, in the first several pages of News I've seen a couple of hits, several by a site called KpopStarz (including the one already in the article), but also this mention, Newsday, and STLtoday.com. I think if the article creator can do some research, they might find enough to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. And that search was simply on the main "Cool Math" moniker. Onel5969 TT me 14:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • FYI, KpopStarz isn't a reliable source, they run stories on all sorts of crap. Sam Walton ( talk) 14:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Government Swedish Pakistani College of Technology, Gujrat

Government Swedish Pakistani College of Technology, Gujrat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a hoax. No reliable sources. Only sources are personal blogs and other similar sites. Nothing reliable shows up in Google. older ≠ wiser 14:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Any Reason why this is nominated???? Anjana Larka Talk! 13:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Look at the sources online, it does appear to exist (not a hoax). However, coverage in reliable sources is scarce from what I could dig up. Someone more familiar with the subject may be able to find more, but in it's current state I would recommend deletion. Jujutacular ( talk) 05:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Lazos de amor (2016 telenovela)

Lazos de amor (2016 telenovela) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is too early to make this article. Because still not confirmed if Angelique Boyer and Sebastián Rulli will be the protagonist. He has not even begun production of the telenovela, much less has confirmed the cast and evidence search the cast have not started, for more than 20 or 30 that have references to talk about this project. It is not known if performed or not. In 2013, it was confirmed that a remake of the telenovela " Simplemente María" would be done, but it was not until 2015 that confirmed and will take place. Besides Michelle Renaud also you want to be the star of this telenovela. I therefore ask that the article be deleted until at least begin production of the telenovela and there is a release date or promotional. Philip J Fry (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep.The article's references say otherwise, Michelle Renaud was not cast as the lead but he was given a role in Pasión y poder.So I don't get what the nominator is talking about.As the references state clearly production is set to happen in October or November since it will be a great production.Moreover,the telenovela is creating a buzz already.More importantly pages like La Tempestad were created months before it premiered so I why will this be out of the norm?Additionally the reasons given are based on rumours since citation was not given to support the argument given by the nominator and most importantly a page is always developed from a single word. Nyanchoka : talk to me 21:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
In an interview Angelique Boyer said clearly that nothing is yet confirmed, that if called to star in the telenovela, but nothing is confirmed yet. And José Alberto Castro recently said "Pasión y poder" ends in April 2016. So Michelle Renaud could do the casting for the telenovela. In addition several of the references are from months ago, when this telenovela was announced. It is best to wait at least begin searching cast. Because if not then we would have to create, "La usurpadora (2016 telenovela)" which supposedly will be starring Anahí. The article seems irrelevant now. Current references prove nothing, plus it is not known whether the title will definitov "Lazos de amor" or changed. Better to wait, telenovelas have already been confirmed and then not performed before. So step with " Madre Sustituta" and then was canceled. Even with regard to "Madre Sustituta" they had thousands of reliable sources that ensured that the telenovela would be done, but then he never did. So it's best to wait to create "Lazos de amor (2016 telenovela)".-- Philip J Fry (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The references I used are recent. If cancelled,which I doubt,the page may be deleted.Pages like Doña Bárbara, the article has been in its same state since earlier this year.So I don't get what Philip J Fry is talking about.It's just a matter of simple understanding.Most of the pages in "Category:Upcoming television series" most of the articles are in the same state as this one.Examples are; The Ranch (TV series), Mysticons (planned to premiere in 2017), Thirteen (TV series), Of Kings and Prophets and The One Percent (TV series),which are perfect examples of what I stated.Honestly this article meets WP:GNG. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 22:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm not going to use this to discuss with you. You do not want to understand anything, and I will not continue wasting my time to explain anything. Other users decide if the article remains or not. For I see that you're going to start taking a thousand things that have nothing to do here.-- Philip J Fry (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nominator,You seem to forget anyone has his /her own opinion over here so its not a matter of making me understand.What I understand is what I think is write.Regrettably arguing with you has never been fun.So remain civil in such discussions.Irrelevance comes with your arguments.So I leave till,a comment has been dropped by any other user. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 23:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • ”'Delete:”' Only I confirmed that the telenovela would be done, but still has not decided whether Angelique Boyer and Sebastián Rulli will be the protagonists. Besides this falls WP:CRYSTAL BALL. May be thousands of references that talk about the same, but that proves nothing. -- Elreysintrono ( talk) 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Draft and userfy for now as I would say keep because these telenovelas almost always happen. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This is an STUB, it doesn't needs to be here until something is really confirmed about the telenovela, It is too early to say that Sebastián Rulli and Angelique Boyer are the stars of this telenovelas. It's best to delete it and in one of the news the supossed "actress" says that the telenovela isn't confirmed, so delete this is an innecessary STUB. AND A COMMENT, this fight between Nyanchoka and Phillip J. Fry is silly, I think admin should fix that because I got a notice that I was a sockpuppet and that is FAKE. MEOW ElGatoSaez ( talk) 00:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 05:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Nadelakandy

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

Not sure The Amazing Spiderman ( talk) 17:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Move to DRAFT space. This article does not come close to meeting the standards for writing and sourcing. It also is unclear as to how much of it is original research (and, in this regard, note that the lengthy external link that had been deleted was to a Google collection of photographs, and not to any written material). Then again, maybe this really is a sourcble part of the history of Sri Lanka. Moving it into Draft space will give the article's creator time to improve the article. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 22:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the article was tagged for possible hoax, no refs, and general problems, and the tags were removed by the creator/editor within minutes. I'm guessing that this is someone who is unfamiliar with WP editing practices and generally with how things work. I'll !vote move to draft, or delete with the caveat that the creator has to agree to work through AfC to learn more about WP and editing. LaMona ( talk) 23:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there are no references supplied that come close to verifying any of the information provided in the article. I have tried searching for any information remotely related to the subject and am unable to find anything. In its current form the article should be deleted. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Draft and userfy if this can happen as I simply see no improvement for this and if that can happen later, we can see if it is acceptable for mainspace then. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Almost completely made up stuff aimed at ethnic glorification. Unable to find any sources. utcursch | talk 03:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Don't see the need to userfy what looks like the usual clan stuff/OR/glorification. Drmies ( talk) 03:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Joey Camen

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

Seems to fall short of WP:NACTOR (minor, often unnamed roles in things of note, larger roles in less notable things.) Name can be found in databases (the "New York Times" source cited is their reuse of the All Movie Guide database and places that list cast, but the biggest mention I can find is a one-sentence call-out in a Variety review. The film festival award listed is the lowest-level award given at a festival that gives an award to every film they show. No reliable source is included supporting other boastful claims. Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Let this page stay. He's a good voice actor and has done a lot of voices including the ones in the Skylanders franchise. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 17:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Article needs more references yet it has enough as is for it to remain on Wikipedia. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 18:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It's usually fairly difficult to source VA articles since they rarely get the coverage that non-voice actors would get for the same type of roles, so in these cases we have to look at their filmography to really tell what they've done. From what I can see, it looks like this actor has voiced the same two characters for multiple games in the Sam & Max series. He's also voiced a character for six episodes for Eureka Seven, so there's that as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, he did a named character in a foreign language dub of Eureka Seven, but that's one of 41 named characters listed in our article, and as you note, just 6 episodes out of 50. I have not seen the series, so I cannot tell you if the character is significant. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm seeing a good deal of coverage here, certainly plenty of documentation of his roles, and positive mention in noteworthy publication Variety. — Cirt ( talk) 10:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Journalist Association for Peace

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

No coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. This organization claims to be only five months old. I can find nothing other than its web site to even verify existence much less notability. Jbh Talk 17:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I'm not seeing any obvious improvement here per my searches but feel free to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Scott Dawson. Drmies ( talk) 03:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Strength to Stand Conference

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

No established notability, previously deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Strength to Stand Conferences RF23 ( talk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Scott Dawson as the two are best known for each other and I found no convincingly good coverage. Pinging paat commenters Peterkingiron and Tom Morris. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the ping, SwisterTwister. Concur: redirect to Scott Dawson. I'm dubious as to Mr. Dawson's notability too ( al.com describe him as "known for organizing crusades at minor league baseball parks and school football stadiums", which doesn't exactly make him seem like a big fish in the rather large pond of American evangelical leaders), but that's a separate issue. His religious evangelism events can more than adequately covered on the article about him. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • concur with redirect Such coverage [34] as I could find is really minor. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, I can't find any sourcing and don't see any reason to redirect to another article when it looks like that one isn't notable either.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 03:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:46, 2 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! 16:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 16:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Alfie Stewart

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

Fails at WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Notability has not been established within the article, plus there is no significant coverage in reliable source. A Borderline speedy case but it's better to discuss. Hitro talk 21:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as there is unsurprisingly no coverage about him with only a few roles, none of them outstanding or otherwise suggesting noticeable attention. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While this actor has picked up some popularity, that's not the same thing as notability. I feel like the article should just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 14:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Express Raja

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

No indication of significance. Olowe2011 Talk 20:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as this exists per Need and browser links but the most recent coverage is May and would likely be best restarted when better. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: "Express Raja" Sharwanand "Merlapaka Gandhi" Surabi "UV Creations"

*Delete temporarily. Just a touch TOO SOON. While filming has begun it is still a bit short of meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3). No great loss to lose the very short stub and a far better and more comprehensive article can be allowed to be recreated in a just a few weeks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC) struck per my argument below. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Too soon to tell. The director does not have an article--the link goes merely to one of his films. Entering prinicpal photography should only justify a new movie when there is some real possibility that it will be notable once released. DGG ( talk ) 11:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Well DGG, that a director does not have an article (and this fellow really should and will as my next project) simply means we do not have a place to which to redirect or merge. And a user's prediction of possible failure is as crystal as a user's prediction of possible success. What is clarified for editors in WP:NFF is an acknowledgement of topic notability determinable through findable coverage, used or not... and that in either failure OR success, a film topic's notability is dependent on media coverage of the film's overall production. Just sayin'. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
aas always, I defer to your expertise in this areas--I was judging as best i could from the material as it was presented DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kiva Kahl

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

no established notability RF23 ( talk) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 16:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Melanie Liburd

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

Minor actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Yes and there's simply no better improvement here at least for general notability and better sourcing, not to mention there's also no obviously good move target. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Abdulkadir Ali

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

WP:BLP, resting on one single news article and a primary source on his own website, of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for president of a country — but out of the 21 other candidates he ran against in that election, the only three who have articles are the winner, his predecessor whom he ousted, and one person who previously held another notable political office. Non-winning candidates do not get articles on that basis alone, but must be demonstrably notable for something else independent of their candidacy — but nothing like that has been demonstrated or sourced here. Delete unless enough reliable source coverage can be piled onto his past presidency of the Somali American Chamber of Commerce to get him over WP:GNG for that. Bearcat ( talk) 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. At Somali presidential election, 2012#Results, there is someone indicated as coming in 4th place in the election (which was an indirect election, where the voters were the members of parliament) under the name Abdiqadir Osoble Ali. I can understand that "Abdulkadir" could be a variant of "Abdiqadir", but if they are the same person, the spelling of his name should be standardized. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now unless it can actually be improved as although I found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam, there wasn't much and the name mentioned above seems like someone else considering the different middle name. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jack Andrew Cook

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

WP:BLP of an actor and film director, which makes no substantive claim of notability for either endeavour under the relevant sections of WP:CREATIVE, and which is referenced exclusively to primary and unreliable sources with not a shred of actual media coverage shown. Even his IMDb profile credits him exclusively with short films and unnamed minor characters, with no evidence of noteworthy roles — and a person does not get a Wikipedia inclusion freebie just because they're on IMDb, either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually achieves something that actually gets him over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Bearcat ( talk) 14:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Price Overide

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

No references, and no claims to notability. This is more of an WP:Essay So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 16:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I suppose as this looks better now. Delete as Books and browser found a few links but I'm not seen ng anything for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Alt:
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: Obviously a typo in the article title here, should be Price override. I could honestly not make heads or tails of the /Theft/ section, so I have stubbed it to a one-liner. The term is new to me, but appears to be common in accounting and economics. I have slightly WP:OVERCITEd to show that. Pinging ( TheGreatWikiLord— Spinningspark— SwisterTwister) -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:09, 3 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! 14:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I can live with that as a stub. If it stays like that I would favour moving to the corrected spelling. Spinning Spark 14:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, naturally move it to Price override. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and move to Price override per my above comments: the term is common and is easily referenced with reliable sources found to verify notability. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Most stubs start out as just a definition, or little more than that. The question for AfD is whether or not it is capable of being expanded into a decent article from reliable sources. In my opinion it is; this book and this one discuss it at length. One can even find book sources that discuss the theft issue associated with price overrides [35] [36]. Spinning Spark 13:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Nom's statement "i don't think that this is an article worth of encyclopedic inclusion." is purely personal point-of-view that should be avoided, cf. WP:BELONG. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • it may be my lack of imagination, but I am not seeing how this can ever expand to be an article worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The fact that it is discussed in a textbook is not criteria enough for inclusion. Suppose you presented 2 news articles from ?WSJ saying that price override led to a ?2.1% decrease in anticipated revenue, that would be different story. for me textbook alone is not enough is this case. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 14:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • On the contrary, textbooks are one of the most acceptable sources for establishing notability of a subject. According to our reliable sources guideline "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." You appear not to have heard that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, but in any case, the phrase is coming up in gnews items if you care to look. Spinning Spark 15:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article but keep information. I never said Wikipedia is news. News was just an example of what would have established notability. Both of the examples show that "price overrides" was mentioned once in each book. I do not think that this coverage is in depth enough to establish notability. I am not convinced that this deserves an article in an encyclopedia. I am, however, in favor of adding this information to Shrinkage_(accounting). I believe that would be more encyclopedic than its own article. Thank you. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Nom missed the spelling error. That and their subsequent comments begs the question: what kind of searches were performed prior to nomination? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am confused that you linked to Wikipedia:Notability (events) before, it has no bearing in this case, and now you link to Wikipedia:No personal attacks saying you think that notability has not been established? The lack of answer to my question "what kind of searches were performed prior to nomination" leaves me with the impression that no due diligence was performed. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 22:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • we are moving off topic. I have edited my previous comment. I have nothing further to say. Please try to establish the notability of the topic as oppose to questioning what I am or am not capable of. Thank you. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 01:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Notability has been established and no successful arguments for deletion have been advanced for this apparently common term in accounting and economics.
Cite journal
  • Perry, William E. (2010). "Concurrent EDP Auditnig an Early Warning Scheme". EDPACS. 1 (8): 1–7. doi: 10.1080/07366987409450112. ISSN  0736-6981.
  • Perez, Darrin (2015). "What Comes Next": 187–215. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4842-1040-6_10. {{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= ( help)
  • Anitsal, Ismet; Schumann, David (2007). "Toward a Conceptualization of Customer Productivity: The Customer's Perspective on Transforming Customer Labor into Customer Outcomes Using Technology-Based Self-Service Options". The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 15 (4): 349–363. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679150405. ISSN  1069-6679.
  • and mentioned in many more
Cite news
Cite book
Asking if the mandatory WP:BEFORE was performed in this case is neither irrelevant to the nomination nor is it a personal attack. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Adesola Kazeem Adeduntan

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

Notability. This is a declined speedy on the grounds that a borderline claim of significance has been made; however most of the references are essentially reports about the bank he works for. In other words, just a man doing his job. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as although I found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Wikicology. Based on his position in one of Africa's largest banks, and the primary sources about him, he arguably passes WP:GNG. I'd like to see more secondary sources, but bankers in developing nations tend to be camera-shy for security reasons. Bearian ( talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Towns

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

Fails notability. Has not made an active roster, not currently on an NFL roster Edday1051 ( talk) 09:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 2 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! 08:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Caleb Holley

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

Fails notability. Has not made an active roster, not currently on an NFL roster Edday1051 ( talk) 09:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I see nothing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:26, 2 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! 08:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is in bad shape, but the sources referenced above are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Hopefully, someone (any East Central fans out there?) can add the sources and adopt this article for improvement. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Poetry Speaks Expanded

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

An anthology is not notable because it publishes notable poets; all anthologies do that by their very nature. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 2 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! 08:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NBOOK. There are reviews on Booklist, PW, (but not Kirkus), but these do not establish notability, IMO, they are just routine. LaMona ( talk) 00:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK as there are multiple reviews ie. [37] - The Morning News - " If you are looking for an overview and primer to the variegated world of poetry, this book appears to be an accessible and useful guide." , [38] - The Wilson Quarterly - "Though the recordings have long been accessible to the specialist, this is the first collection to make them widely available, and the first to offer such abundant contextual material." and "Poetry Speaks founders only on the issue of audience", [39] - Publishers Weekly - "This second edition of the popular anthology is an accessible introduction to 20th century poetry on the page and in the air. ... this book may convince readers that well-chosen words gain vitality when heard aloud" and "Reluctant poetry readers may find themselves drawn to the printed page by the spoken work, and poetry fans are likely to find much to love here.", [40] - Buffalo & Erie County Public Library lists Booklist ("Book and CDs work beautifully together, kindling deeper appreciation for the transmuting power of poetry") and School Library Journal ("The inviting layout and scattering of primary-source material (gems include a handwritten poem on a paper plate by Etheridge Knight and an edited draft of W. H. Auden's "September 1, 1939"), and the invaluable effect of poems read by their creators remain the collection's hallmarks.") reviews, [41] - HighBeam Research lists 5 reviews (some may be deemed trivial) including Knight Ridder Tribune ("It's often said that poetry, at its heart, is a spoken form, with those marks on the page being only a blueprint for what is really performance art. Poetry Speaks underscores that view with more than three hours of oratory, some of which is no less than spine-tingling."), Insight on the News ("Heaney is one of 42 contemporary poets who introduce 42 of their deceased colleagues in this ambitious collection"), The Herald News ("The international draw to this best seller isn't just the words by famous poets within the pages, but also the 3 CDs that reveal the poet's voices as they read their own work."). Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This book easily meets the first criterion of WP:NBOOK. There are several non-trivial reviews: [42] [43] [44] [45]. There are also many rave quotes by very notable news services listed here. The requirement is simply that there be two non-trivial, independent reviews by reliable sources, and the examples listed above plainly show that the subject qualifies. There is no question that this book is notable. -- Biblio worm 17:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 19:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kevin Williamson (actor)

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

Questionably notable and although I mostly found results for the other Kevin Williamson, I found some here and I also even found another Kevin Williamson actor here (this other one is American and obviously non-notable with only one film in 2007.) Thus with hardly any edits since starting in October 2006 and no other obvious signs of work and therefore improvement to the article, there's nothing to suggest keeping this article. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, I'm not seeing a particularly strong claim to notability here, either. An actor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he exists — rather, he must be reliably sourceable as having passed one or more of the specific criteria listed at WP:NACTOR. But that hasn't been shown here. In addition, nothing else in articlespace links to him except the disambiguation page for people named Kevin Williamson — so while it is occasionally possible that a person actually does satisfy a notability criterion on some detail that somehow got overlooked in the writing of the article, I'm not seeing any evidence that he falls into that camp. Delete per nom. Bearcat ( talk) 17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. actor active only locally, with no encyclopedic notability DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing in searches turned up anything to see they pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 19:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

R.K. Swamy

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

This current article simply never specifies how he's explicitly notable aside from founding that company and he's not mentioned at another article so I'm not sure if he and the company should be briefly mentioned at the BBDO Worldwide article. The best my searches found was this and this but I would like comments to see what is best for this barely changed article from October 2008. Notifying the only seemingly interested user Nsk92. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've added more than sufficient sources to show notability and to cover all existing content. I'll go back to clean up and inline source later. — Spaceman Spiff 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 2 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! 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep This squeaks by notability mainly because of the coverage in obituaries. I have this terrible feeling that if he were alive we'd know much less about him. LaMona ( talk) 00:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Joe Don Duncan

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:18, 2 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! 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable Division II college football Little All-America selection. Although I believe this is a much closer call than Cbl62 does -- we should not even be discussing coverage by SBNation/"Mile High Report" and the university's student media for purposes of establishing notability -- I count at least four articles in independent, reliable media that constitute significant coverage of the subject's college career and All-America honors linked by Cbl above. I am less than impressed with the bloggy one-paragraph mentions in the hometown newspaper of the university, and, as I mentioned in another pending AfD, I am concerned and conflicted by articles about former CFB players whose "technical" satisfaction of GNG is based entirely on sports column coverage of their failed attempts to make a regular season NFL roster. This latter issue is problematic and has led to a growing cluster of perma-stubs about which we can only say that that the subject played for CFB Team X, and he was signed as a free agent and cut by NFL Team Y without ever having played a down in a pro game. I'm not sure what the encyclopedic content, if any, is in such articles, and we really need to find a better way of analyzing of such cases. Fortunately, that problem is not at issue in the case of Joe Don Duncan. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kannada American

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

I can find very little coverage of this linguistic group in independent, reliable sources. The article title appears to be a neologism, but searching for alternative terms does not reveal enough coverage to establish notability either. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete likely as no improvement has happened which is not surprising with these articles and my searches also found nothing good so if this can be restarted better, that may be better. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Duke of Edinburgh Awards. Drmies ( talk) 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The Duke of Edinburgh Awards

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

Article was PRODded by another editor but this was opposed. This article is essentially just an extended plot summary of a television episode with no encyclopaedic treatment of the subject, and therefore fails WP:PLOT. Notability has not been established - there is a single, primary-source reference in the article that is used only to support the running time. A requested move discussion on the article's talk page recommends moving the article (this is neither necessary or appropriate) and subsequently redirecting the article to Duke of Edinburgh Awards. Redirection might be an appropriate outcome of this discussion as an alternative to deletion. AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • I see a wider issue here. The article on The Inbetweeners shows that all the episodes of series 1 and 2 and some of the episodes of series 3 have their own articles and they are all as bad as this one. Furthermore they are all listed in List of The Inbetweeners episodes where the information on each episode is almost the same as the individual articles. They should all be redirects to that list article, but that needs a new discussion and I do not have time. So I propose here a redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes and then we can look at the rest. -- Bduke (Discussion) 11:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Several of those have notable topics with names where the episode title is a viable redirect for. All of those should be deleted as replicating the list's material, and those that are viable search terms of other topics should redirect to those other topics (and not to the episode list). The episode list can be noted as a hatnote at the alternative topics. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Notability not established, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED either which the person who removed the PROD claims that it inherited the notability of the TV show overall. After deletion, this should redirect to Duke of Edinburgh's Award. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mrs. FIXIT

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

Seemingly open and shut case with my best searches here, here, here and here suggest no further signs of notability and improvement with this easily being speedy and PROD material. Pinging past user WikiDan61. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Tagged for notability 6 years ago, with no signs of improvement. My searches turn up no better than Swister's. Lots of content by her, but nothing significant and independent about her. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 10:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as per nom and WikiDan61. Clearly not notable, as searches turned up no in-depth coverage from independent sources. Onel5969 TT me 15:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. not notable, and promotional. Almost a G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgie Aldous

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

That was me. I believe Wikipedia has a policy regarding notability. And a kid with some 15k subscribers and less than 5k likes on Facebook at the moment is hardly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This sets a dangerous precedent, because if this kid can have a Wikipedia page, why not create one for every single person with a fashion blog and 15 thousand subscribers on YouTube? And just like that, you'll have hundreds, if not thousands of articles on completely unimportant people, because everyone has 15 thousand subscribers on YouTube - since even channels with 6 figures in the subscriber area are considered small, 15k can be seen as nothing.

The sources are terrible and can't even be taken seriously. A gay person is not notable (meaning to the general public) if he only appeared on sites like "The Gay" or "Pink News", atrocious blogs like "Sugarscape" (who the hell puts these as serious sources...) and some small local news site like "Eastern Daily Press". Are you kidding? You might as well just throw a quick blog together in Wordpress, write an article youself and use it a a source. And if you're going to write about being "known worldwide", you better have some world class sources, and not just "b-b-but his fans are from different parts of the world!" to back you up.

This article has everything a Wikipedia article should NOT have, everything was done wrong, and should go away. This makes me believe the whole thing is an attempt at self-promotion either by the YouTuber himself, or his fans.

84.42.224.20 ( talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Neutrally completes nomination for 84.42.224.20 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), rationale taken from Talk:Georgie Aldous before cleared by 86.16.65.102 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 11:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgie Aldous is a worldwide known Blogger, Anti-Bullying Ambassador and YouTuber shown from his YouTube statistics. Sugarscape and ThePinkNews are reliable news sources as they are viewed by thousands monthly. Georgie rose to fame from his VIRAL YouTube Video and highly popular Coming Out Video, if someone gets popular through a Coming Out video no wonder it was written about in the news, the people that want this page taken down must be, homophobic? People must be searching who he is because this page is the top result for 'Georgie Aldous' and it used to be bottom! It has a lot of useful information on it, he's up for 3 YouTube related awards which I didn't know of until reading this article. Being an LGBT YouTuber and Ambassador is a defining characteristic, just like the Gay politicians or Gay writers category on here! I say it should stay, it helps people know more about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.65.102 ( talk) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete At best, this is too soon. The article does not have any mainstream or major sources. The article lists awards that he has been nominated for in 2015, but has not yet won. He was "newtuber of the week" at one site in June of 2015 - only four months ago. This needs much more time and more reliable source recognition. LaMona ( talk) 21:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There really aren't many sources on him and to be quite frank he's not that popular on YouTube. There are many YouTubers with much larger followings and even more press than he does without articles currently. Maybe in a while he will be more notable, but for now he is simply not. Andise1 ( talk) 07:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep--with the caveat that the article should be moved per consensus. Drmies ( talk) 03:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgia Southern–Georgia State football rivalry

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

This AfD is a forehead slapper, and does not require any in-depth analysis under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, because COMMON SENSE suggests that there can be no meaningful rivalry between two universities or teams after exactly ONE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME between them. DELETE with extreme prejudice. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 10:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ordinarily, I would agree with Dirtlawyer, as, on the surface, it would appear that two teams that have played so few match-ups on the football field couldn't possibly be rivals. But, a closer examination of the situation reveals a different story, as this one really is the proverbial "exception that proves the rule." These two schools, fanbases, and teams absolutely DESPISE each other, going back to 1990, when Georgia Southern College was renamed Georgia Southern University, and immediately came into conflict with Georgia State over which school would have the right to bear the coveted "GSU" moniker, with Georgia State's seniority coming out on top. So why have the two teams hardly ever played each other? Well, primarily because Georgia State didn't field a football team before 2010. Since then, Georgia State has gone FBS, jumping to the Sun Belt Conference in 2013, which then prompted Georgia Southern to move to the Sun Belt in 2014 (I'm not kidding, literally no one at Georgia Southern had any desire to move to FBS at all, they were perfectly happy in FCS, until Georgia State announced that they would be moving up. That lit a huge fire under the folks in Statesboro, that they had to go FBS to keep up with Atlanta). So, this series is now a conference series, at long last, and will be played annually for the foreseeable future. Not to mention that there will now be a trophy up for competition between these two schools, starting with the upcoming season (see here). I would suggest that this situation is something like Giants–Jets rivalry, where the two teams in question have hardly ever played each other (12 all-time meetings in 45 years), yet they are "rivals" primarily for off the field reasons. So, what to do with this article? Well, for starters, I would recommend moving it to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry, which would allow expansion of the article to include other sports besides just football (basketball, baseball, etc.), as these two schools actually have more of an on-field history together in those other sports then they do on the gridiron. But, bottom line, is there a rivalry between these two schools? As someone who actually follows and is familiar with Sun Belt Conference football, I can answer unequivocally, yes, absolutely there is. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 12:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Ejgreen77: Assuming for the sake of argument everything you say above is 100% true and correct, this "rivalry" still fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If this rivalry is real, as you strongly believe that it is, then it should be incorporated into the Georgia State Panthers football and Georgia Southern Eagles football articles. As a comment on the notability of the more generalized rivalry between these two "GSU" Georgia state universities, I also note that " Modern Day Hate," an article about the rivalry between the two universities, was speedily deleted pursuant to WP:A11 as an obviously newly coined name. None of Georgia State Panthers football, Georgia Southern Eagles nor Georgia Southern Eagles football so much as mentions this "rivalry," and I would suggest that is where present efforts should be focused unless and until this "rivalry" sufficiently matures to satisfy the GNG criteria with significant coverage in multiple outlets of the mainstream media. Wikipedia does not cover topics as stand-alone articles unless they are notable per GNG or other applicable specific notability guideline(s). Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this rivalry (if it exists at all) has nothing to do with football. The statement that the students at the two schools hate each other may be notable, but making it about a football game that has been played once and scheduled for a second game does not make it a rivalry. I have no objection to an article about the alleged basketball rivalry or general student discourse that may exist.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Paulmcdonald: I assume that you would have no problem with the addition of new "GSU vs. GSU" rivalry content in the existing Georgia State Panthers and Georgia Southern Eagles articles, correct? Notability of the rivalry topic is not required for inclusion of rivalry content in the parent sports program and football team articles. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
But, then, instead of simply maintaining, improving, and updating this article, we'll have to create and maintain a similar level of content at two different pages, namely Georgia Southern Eagles football and Georgia State Panthers football, creating twice as much maintenance & updating work as if this page is simply kept, retitled, and expanded. Creating more unnecessary busywork is never a good thing, IMHO. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 14:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
EJ, every truly notable CFB rivalry should be and usually is covered in the main team articles, regardless of whether there is a stand-alone rivalry article. See, e.g., Florida Gators football#Rivalries and Florida–Georgia football rivalry. More examples provided on request. Efficiency is not the issue here; notability is. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)) reply
Rivalry information could be included there if editors deem it worthy. Right now it's about the notability of this particular article, and it just isn't there.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I need to ponder this one a bit further, it's a bit of an odd duck. The lack of history weighs on the 'delete' side. But there is more coverage of this series as a rivalry than we typically see. This includes substantial coverage, focusing on the rivalry, in major media outlets like this and this, both from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (perhaps the most respected media outlet in the Southern United States) and this from the USA Today and Associated Press. Since the rivalry is not limited to football, but is a broader rivalry between the two schools and alumni bases, one possible solution is to move this to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry and expand the coverage to basketball (see this regarding basketball rivalry), volleyball (see this regarding volleyball rivalry), etc. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Living in Atlanta for 14 of the past 21 years, we are familiar withe AJC. One of the AJC "articles" linked above is not a news article at all, but an online blog that does not appear in the actual newspaper and is not editorially reviewed by the AJC editorial staff. The content of the actual AJC news article calls into question the entire idea of an instant rivalry in football between State and Southern, including sober commentary from both of the coaches about it possibly becoming a true rivalry in the future. Likewise, the USA Today article quotes one of the coaches as saying "Rivalries are things that are established over years and history. . . . So this is the start of one because it's natural, we're in the same conference and the same state. Hopefully in years to come they'll be talking about what a great rivalry it is." The text of neither article supports the existence of a meaningful rivalry in the present. At present, this is very much another manufactured rivalry for marketing purposes. Rivalries are not simply "declared"; they evolve naturally as a result of geographical proximity, shared traditions, common and opposite characteristics of student bodies, politics, competitive series, and sometimes because of unfortunate events on and off the field. The perspective of the State and Southern coaches in these two articles reflects that reality. FYI, Altanta.Suntimes.com is a national content aggregation site of the Chicago Sun Times; it is not an Atlanta-based news medium, and the source of much its content is either unclear or clearly outsourced. In the case of the volleyball rivalry article, the source is a press release of the Georgia State University athletic department website to which the blurb on Atlanta.Suntimes.com directly links. When we distill it down, we have two legitimate news articles (one each from AJC and USA Today), both of which quote the football coaches as soberly saying that it takes time to build a rivalry. There is a third article, from the AJC, discussing last spring's end-of-season meeting between the two universities men's basketball teams. These are very slender sources with which to create a comprehensive article about a multi-sport rivalry between State and Southern, especially when there is virtually no shared history of actual athletic competition. This is reminiscent of the Civil Conflict rivalry, in which one of the coaches unilaterally declared a "rivalry"; real rivalries evolve from events, they are not delcared. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm still on the fence, but this article strikes me as presenting an arguably stronger case of rivalry, between the two schools across all sports, than the Civil Conflict. And the AfD in that case ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Conflict (college football game)) garnered substantial "Keep" support (I was neutral in that one) and was not deleted. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Also, I don't necessarily agree with your contention that the second AJC piece ( here) is not reliable. It is published on the AJC web site and written by Doug Roberson, an AJC staff sports reporter (see here. Self-published blogs by individuals with no particular expertise are considered unreliable, but blogs published by those with particularized expertise (e.g., the AJC and its staff reporters) may be considered reliable. See WP:BLOGS. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination, make a single game article if there really is lots of backstory to the contest. Cake ( talk) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I wish this discussion was occurring (revisited) in two months. This year's football game is scheduled for Dec 5 and is the last regular season game for each team (a common scheduling hallmark of rivalry games, though obviously not predictive). The associated, or lack of, media coverage of the presumptive second cycle would be helpful. I do concede the WP:GNG issues including lack of significant independent coverage, whether attributable to "newness" and/or size of fanbases. UW Dawgs ( talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Georgia Southern–Georgia State rivalry, as per Ejgreen77 suggestion above. There is insufficient history as of yet to have an article focused solely on a one-game "rivalry series". However, there is significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, which includes coverage of an overall rivalry between the two schools. Moving the page and making it broad enough to cover all aspects of the rivalry makes the most sense to me. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Beta Uprising

Beta Uprising (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - This phrase wasn't known widely prior to the recent Oregon shooting. There are also no solid sources linked to this page. Abc2VE ( talk) 22:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

A single mention on the BBC site doesn't make a meme a 'thing'. EamonnPKeane ( talk) 19:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ EamonnPKeane: maybe not, but 5500 mentions on the /r9k/ board in the year before the UCC shooting should merit some attention. -- 71.179.209.137 ( talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Your examples of "significant coverage" are quite simply just newspapers quoting a phrase used in the ramblings of a deranged madman. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Chess: Yes, the ramblings of a deranged madman which have significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Rubbish computer 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. The meme doesn't come from BBC; I'm not sure if it comes from 4chan but they are known for promoting it. See [46] for another mention (there are a number of articles about this 'threat', though there is no actual mention of violence).
I think that the concept is actually relatively interesting - it's not really just trollery. The claim is that sexual liberation has created a situation of de facto polygamy, where some "alphas" are absorbing all women's affections, leaving the "betas" desperate. And in truth, there is a certain level of natural polygamy among humans - you can look at the difference in sizes of the sexes, plot that on a curve of harem size in various species, and calculate that human men 'biologically' tend to have a harem size of something like 1.3, if I remember right. And of course species with harems are always subject to violence to control them. So we're really seeing a sort of reverse engineering of the Christian ethic; it's possible that you have to give someone, likely Jesus himself, credit for (at least) thinking up a way to make society less violent - it makes us reflect that perhaps we ripped apart some pretty elaborate social technology without really understanding what it was for.
I think the term has a reasonable number of sources behind it; whether they are in depth enough and reliable enough is debatable, but I think it is productive to let this one stay and try to organize the information for a while. It won't hurt the encyclopedia to have this. Wnt ( talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed as "speedy delete", but per a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 3 that closure is undone and the discussion is relisted. See there for additional discussion and also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels.  Sandstein  10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -Enough reliable sources available to make this a notable meme. ABF99 ( talk) 11:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) After further consideration, changing my !vote to delete. Not enough for notability on its own; this meme can be mentioned in the Umpqua Community College shooting article. ABF99 ( talk) 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft/incubation: Though the number and quality of sources have improved since the original nomination and deletion, it's still thin gruel. I think there's merit in the argument that some (incl. SV and Viriditas, IIRC) made, that the article would lead coverage/spread rumours. Making the draft less visible would also cut down on the number of vandals dropping by. Darth Viller ( talk) 12:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 12:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge - The limited sourcing stresses this as a phrase used on 4chan. This doesn't seem to warrant a stand alone article but per sources the phrase "beta uprising" perhaps warrants a brief section on the 4chan article under the "Threats of violence" section.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 14:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ BoboMeowCat: See this incident, where "Beta Uprising" is described by the Washington Post to explain a written threat on a bathroom wall that was cited as reason for a shutdown of Eastern Kentucky University. (The relation may be questionable, but that was The Post's decision) Wnt ( talk) 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeahbut the source provided regarding the Eastern Kentucky University threat scribbled on bathroom stall also mentions "beta uprising" as a thing from 4chan. Every source referenced mentioning phrase "beta uprising" links it to 4chan. The 4chan article already has a "Threats of violence" section [47] and it seems this is where topic currently belongs given the sourcing.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 18:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ BoboMeowCat: What do you think of tucking it away as a draft? Darth Viller ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - No actual link between a chan and an actual shooting has been verified, and most news outlets have never uttered the term "Beta Uprising" even when talking about the chan post. Most of this article's content is talking about how the beta uprising isn't even real. -- TheTruthiness ( talk) 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. We don't have a page for every single 4chan meme, and none of the refs actually focus on it in any depth -- an offhand mention in a few places isn't enough to establish notability or to support an article here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Wikipedia is not 'knowyourmeme'. Also it started as a hoax to get the 'reliable sources' to name the wrong person as the shooter before the real name was known. It was successful and the reliable sources have corrected their information on that. It could be considered a hoax in that respect that is now a joke. This article would be more at home on ED than on Wiki. Also why is this 'Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions' when it's merely a group of people having a lark at the expense of you and journalism. FlossumPossum ( talk) 22:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per above. GamerPro64 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This article and Incels both cover very similar areas. I believe they should be Merged together if either one of is kept. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 00:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am convinced by BoboMeowCat's argument. If the 'pedia deals with this at all, it should be within the 4chan article. Just not enough (and specific/in-depth enough) coverage to justify a separate article. Fyddlestix ( talk) 00:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge per BoboMeowCat. I think this article doesn't have enough individual notability beyond one or two sources, and thus deserves to be merged with the 4chan article. -- 146.203.126.109 ( talk) 01:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 4chan. This is a hoax created by 4chan users. Note that I voted for relisting this at DRV. sst ✈ 01:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Most of the sources provided here don't provide in-depth significant coverage of the article subject. They simply mention or reference it when discussing its main topic. Notability is not temporary, and I agree that this is indicative of temporary notability and per the discussion held above. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is just a 4chan meme and there is no real evidence it is any kind of actual social event or organization. stufff ( talk) 02:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Yet again I'm brought here because people are linking to this article from off-site and laughing at how idiotic Wikipedia is becoming. That there even has to be a discussion about whether this article should be deleted or not should be a matter of personal embarrassment to some. This "beta uprising" thing is a troll. The fact that mainstream news organizations reported on it should not warrant an article on this; rather, it should cause you to question how reliable these jokers really are. Seriously, go read the citations, it's all stories which use anonymous board posts as some sort of evidence of a greater movement causing violent crimes. If this ever changes, if a "beta uprising" movement ever forms to commit acts of violence against society, then it might warrant an article. Until then, I'd like to remind you of WP:DNFTT. Forcing a discussion for the deletion of this idiocy is going to encourage more trolls to pull similar stunts in the future. Akesgeroth ( talk) 02:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
DNFTT should apply equally to commercial interests, like the various reality-TV families who receive lavish coverage here. Which is to say, it shouldn't apply at all. If we can cover something with reliable sources, we should cover it. If Wikipedia coverage encourages people to go out and be creative online, or frightens them into silence because they see FBI and MIsomething investigating 4chan, either way that's none of our concern. Our concern is just to cover the facts. Wnt ( talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Also I should note that WP:CANVASS applies here. Wnt ( talk) 12:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeah, non-sequiturs and threats. Really convincing words there. Akesgeroth ( talk) 03:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Rule 1 and 2. The most effectual Bob Cat ( talk) 03:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For anyone unaware of the situation, 4chan contributors pride themselves on trolling and contestants get extra points for fooling gullible media into mentioning one of their made-up jokes. It's good that sites like 4chan exist because they help to alert people that you shouldn't believe everything you read, particularly on the internet, however Wikipedia should not participate in that noble aim. There is no evidence of notability, and in a month even the 4chan crowd will have forgotten about this joke. The media have to fill space 24×7 so it is not surprising that they occasionally publish junk, but a couple of mentions do not satisfy WP:N. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I am almost speechless. Surely this Wikipedia article is intended as a joke. Since when did Wikipedia merge with the Urban Dictionary to include any obscure, bizarre made-up term it can find? The background section alone leaves me stupified beyond reason. The entire thing seems to be based on a 4chan meme and a couple of Reddit posts. And 'Angry pepe'? Really? The Pepe-meme? Really? The fact that the pepe-meme is included in a serious tone makes me suspect the author of this article is a troll, its that bad. Omegastar ( talk) 06:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Provided there is data about them, why shouldn't Wikipedia cover memes? There was a huge argument over Campaign for "santorum" neologism but fortunately we realized it was worth covering. We feature practically every piece of software somebody is selling on the front page with everything but a buy now link, so why should we feel ashamed to describe the oddball ideas that make the news? Does someone have to put out payola to make something new acceptable for us to cover? Wnt ( talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
You can find 'data' on literally anything. I consider myself an inclusionist, but even then there are many things that should not be included on Wikipedia. The 'Santorum' neologism is notable because it had a large impact - it displaced Santorum's official website and biographies on google. "A phrase used on 4chan and Reddit" (as the lead of the article puts it) is not notable. Your argument about software is not relevant, as that is an entirely different topic. And I am not sure what you are trying to say with your payola reference, though I will add that Wikipedia isn't a news-site, and its actually a good thing not to cover 'new' things as quick as possible, because you're not going to be able to write a balanced article about something until enough time has passed for its impact to become clear. Omegastar ( talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We don't know if the post on /r9k/ is really linked to the shooter or not. The Beta Uprising joke is in itself not notable, and is just mentioned as part of the brief news cycle. Right now there is not even enough sources to warrant a mention in the Oregon shooting article, let alone a full article. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 08:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I expressed some hesitancy to include it in that article myself, because we don't know for sure that the shooter in that case ever posted to 4chan. It might be a coincidence. But the media coverage cited here was of the meme and comments itself. Wnt ( talk) 12:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- per Omegastar. This is an encyclopedia, not Urban Dictionary. A terrible article about a non-notable meme, full of dubiously sourced attempts to link it to a recent murder. Wikipedia should not be promoting bilge like this. Reyk YO! 09:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete puerile nonsense. Deserves at most a one sentence summary on "List of Internet phenomena" but no more. The existence of parody/satire on the internet, and false threats, means that BBC coverage is pointless. This is the worst of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS and poor use of interpolated opinion pieces as "sources" -- Callinus ( talk) 13:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are plenty of sites out there to track memes. This seems to be not a real thing, and not a notable fake thing. HighInBC 14:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Men like these are under severe attacks by liberal animals and recently a completely reasonable article on Involuntary Celibacy that was fairly well cited had been removed for purely ideological reasons. One the main forces to keep it removed has been a <personal attack removed> who is now banned called Tarc. But memes like these are really not Wikipedia material and don't deserve to be even merged anywhere. If you want to start addressing these most crucial issues start with something that actually isn't just a meme. Especially given how there is now an article on Cuckservative now. Inclusionism, to a reasonable point. Wikipedia isn't reasonable and had fallen to ideology, it seems. Andrey Rublyov ( talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is not knowyourmeme. -- David G ( talk) 05:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:GNG requires persistent coverage over a period of time. We don't have that and there's no indication we will. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Callinus. Should have stayed a speedy delete and sending this back to AFD to get snow deleted is process wonkery imo. shoy ( reactions) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a really pointless Wikipeida page that was only based on a joke.-- Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 18:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • transwiki to Wiktionary. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC). reply
    21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I’m adding WP:NOTNEWS to the long list of reasons to delete this article. Almost all of the news articles that gave the term more than a passing mention were published on or within a couple of days of October 5th, 2015. I’ve only been able to find one news source that published information about the so-called Beta uprising on or after October 10th. Ultimately, I’m seeing this as just another twisted prank from 4chan that got a little bit of media attention but ultimately lacks lasting impact. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if there isn't any sort of policy, it might be time to write one: internet memes, even if they cross to the mainstream are not notable for Wikipedia. At most, this should have a 1 line mention at List of Internet phenomena. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Echoing the general consensus that this is basically just another meme article for a meme that at present has no encyclopedic notability. Muldrake ( talk) 18:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 4chan. This, to me, ought to be redirect to 4chan as an example of the prank that it so obviously is. so that this doesn't occur again! MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - is not notable and uses the absolute lowest grade of The sky is falling! journalism as sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Pile-On Delete Callinus said it perfectly. Crow Caw 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is an old meme that resurfaced due to recent events, it will be completely forgotten soon enough. BoxofPresents ( talk) 23:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possible merge to 4chan. There is coverage of this, but it's not heavy enough at this point in time to warrant an article. Someone here had mentioned merging it somewhere and I think that this could probably warrant a brief mention at 4chan. The shooting page was mentioned, but I'm not entirely sure that this would be good to merge there. Reddit is always a possibility, but the name bandied around more in the news is 4chan. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A 4chan in-joke doesn't need a full article, this isn't knowyourmeme. 82.197.242.162 ( talk) 12:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to 4chan. Kaldari ( talk) 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm inclined to suggest that what needs to happen here is for editors to use this article's sources to build stronger connections (prose, not just see-also) between the articles on the different shootings (Spencer, Roger, etc.), the different websites (4chan, Reddit MRAs, etc.), and relevant phenomena (violence against women). The sources are observing a trend, I'm just not sure a separate article is merited. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 4chan. I don't see why we can't redirect to 4chan. It would be trivially easy to add a sourced sentence there about this, if that's an issue. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This article looks like it be more appropriate for something like UrbanDictionary than Wikipedia. The citations are questionable at best. PlantRunner ( talk) 05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

PČ99

PČ99 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PC System Design Guide is PC99.
Nothing about PČ99 helmet. Xx236 ( talk) 11:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the PC99 article is entirely unrelated and I've removed it. The MPC-1 article merely refers to PČ99, it doesn't describe it or link it, so it's effectively a violation of the disambiguation page policy on red links. If someone wants to write about PČ99, having a red link there is certainly less confusing than a disambiguation page that isn't one. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 10. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 10:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTOCMES. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Maruthi Vidya Kendra

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

Non-notable elementary and middle-school. Was prodded 7 days ago, and the prod tag removed with the following explanation: "A tag has been posted nominating this article for deletion. However I object this as the notability of this article can be proved. This is an institue I have personally studied in and it is an important institute in Tumkur, Karnataka. I shall be improving the article as soon as possible. Thankyou." Since he created the article, they have done very little to improve it. Searches on Google, News, Books, Scholar, and Highbeam returned nothing but a few brief mentions. Onel5969 TT me 00:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This is a K–10 school. That is considered a secondary school in many nations' education systems and many editors here. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Mention to Tumkuru and redirect likely as is usual with these elementary and middle schools. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (negotiate) 10:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. Does actually appear to be a secondary school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kingsbury (band)

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

There's simply nothing to suggest better notabiltiy and improvement with the band seeming to be active from 2008 to 2011 and again since then and my searches finding nothing better than some old news here and here. This is easily speedy and PROD material but as there are a few sources (not they are enough to save this article of course), comments would be good to accompany this nomination. Pinging past user Mattgirling. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (parlez) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sally Worboyes

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

My searches simply found nothing to suggest even minimal improvement with my searches only finding her books at Books and the usual links with browser...aside from that nothing else for this article from August 2008 and this is easily speedy and PROD material. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confide) 10:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm not finding anything about her except blurbs from publishers, which are not terribly independent of the subject. /wia /talk 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While prolific, she doesn't appear to be notable. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 15:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I didn't find any reviews or biographical sources. She writes young adult books in the UK, which may mean that she is better known there than in the US -- and I mainly check US sources. So I'll check back to see if someone with a more UK YA bent has found more to support her article. LaMona ( talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thomas Schücke

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

Seemingly open and shut case of non-notability so unless he actually got some good coverage and it's archived, there's nothing to suggest keeping (this is also speedy and PROD material) and this has basically stayed the same since November 2006. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (express) 10:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No reliable sources, and the @de Wikipedia article is exactly the same. If there are sources, they will be in German sources, and it seems clear that he doesn't have international acclaim. LaMona ( talk) 22:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Torrence Allen

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 07:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 2 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! 08:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (babble) 10:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Gefährliche Wege

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

I'm not sure if this can be better notable and improved as my best searches were at Books (where I found various results for these two words), although there aren't many details to help searching, and this also has gotten almost no changes since starting in January 2009. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this is a book written to be used in school to teach the German language to English-speakers, it comes as a kit with the printed book, the whole story (20 episodes) on 7 audio tapes and a teacher's guide. It seems to have been used widely in 10th to 12th grade German lessons, there is a " curriculum review" and there is this. The book was published in 1976, and there's also a Spanish version, both written by Emile de Harven. Kraxler ( talk) 01:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the German title translates to "dangerous routes" it's obviously not the easiest subject title to search for. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (address) 09:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even if the IPs are discounted, we don't really have a clear consensus to delete.  Sandstein  11:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kenichi Sawai

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

Martial artist with no significant independent coverage. Sources are passing mentions and he's not even mentioned in all of them. Being soundly defeated repeatedly by someone is not grounds for notability nor is creating a minor variation of an existing martial art. Jakejr ( talk) 04:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject of documentaries (e.g. [54]) and books in his native Japan, author of multiple published books, covered in multiple sources (which of the sources in the article doesn't mention him? I can find his name in every single one), important figure in Japanese and internal martial arts history. Try Googling his name in Japanese... [55] Yunshui  雲 水 07:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep many documentaries in Japan. 173.52.89.236 ( talk) 12:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Please list some of the "many documentaries" you claim are there. Astudent0 ( talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Undecided The article's sources are passing mentions. FWIW my internet search didn't find him in the "Chinese Kung Fu" book. Yunshui does provide a link to a documentary, but I noticed his entry on the Japanese WP only has one source so that's a problem. Are his books considered significant as defined at WP:MANOTE? Astudent0 ( talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The mention in Chinese Kung Fu is under the alternate reading of his name, "Keniqi Takuike". Yunshui  雲 水 07:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Thank you, but that appears to be another passing mention. Astudent0 ( talk) 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep passes gng 2607:FB90:E9A:510D:0:48:EBBF:E701 ( talk) 04:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete I'm changing my undecided to weak delete based on the lack of significant independent coverage that has been presented. I'm seeing claims but not enough supporting evidence. Astudent0 ( talk) 17:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Kenichi Sawai was a notable student of Wang Xiangzhai. He was likely the first ever to teach a Chinese Internal martial art in Japan (the art of Yi Quan) and during his time one of very few in Japan who taught Chinese martial arts in general. He was good friends with Mas Oyama and the two cross-influenced each other. Jonathan.bluestein ( talk) 10:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Notability is not inherited from teachers or friends. If you have a reliable independent source that says he was the first to teach a Chinese internal martial art in Japan, that's different. Do you have such a source? Mdtemp ( talk) 18:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep GOOD ARTICLES ABOUT HIM ONLINE 2607:FB90:246A:83B:0:24:F72F:A901 ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Again we have a new IP making the same claims as the other new IPs, but not furnishing any evidence or links. Papaursa ( talk) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete There is not enough significant independent coverage of him to support the claim he meets WP:GNG. Of those advocating the article be kept, only Yunshui has provided any supporting evidence and that was just one source. The fact that the Japanese WP also has just one source doesn't help his case. Searching in Japanese sources I was able to find mentions of his name, but not to determine if the coverage was both significant and from independent and reliable sources. Papaursa ( talk) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I feel that he should be kept but it is hard to come up with a good reason - the coverage isn't great. He is sort of a nexus point which we can see but find difficult to describe. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete searches turned up nothing to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Onel5969 TT me 02:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 09:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  10:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Wild Palms (band)

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

Article (re-)created in violation of WP:COI guideline, likely by label One Little Indian employee. May be sufficiently notable (or may be not), but I think it is better to wait for the article to be created without conflict of interest. Delete — Kusma ( t· c) 13:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Damn (band) and my talk page for some background. — Kusma ( t· c) 13:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable enough. The article seems fairly neutral, although it could use a lot of work. Coverage from The Quietus, Clash, The List, The Skinny, Uncut, Q, NME, Mojo, Huffington Post, and The Gazette, among others, could be used to improve the article. -- Michig ( talk) 08:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That is clearly not the case. -- Michig ( talk) 06:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I'm simply not seeing as much coverage there could be and the best my searches found was this. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You only found the first page of a Google search? -- Michig ( talk) 07:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Might help if you put the band name and the member name in quotes to cut out irrelevant results. e.g. search for "wild palms" "lou hill". -- Michig ( talk) 07:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Michig. I'm finding in-depth coverage that could be used to fill out the article. Andreas JN 466 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and weak keep: Actually for whatever reason this article was recreated; the original article was tagged by me as a G12, (copyvio): [56] and an admin deleted it under that same QD reason. An admin who can see these details could verify. I see no reason to delete for a conflict of interest and this version does not seem to have been blatently copied from another's writing. Thanks Fylbecatulous talk 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The fact that the article creator has a COI is not sufficient reason in itself to delete. If the previous version of the article was deleted for copyvio, that shouldn't prejudice the current version so long as it contains no text copied from elsewhere. Now, I only looked at the first page of results for the string ["Wild Palms" "Ex Lion Tamers]" but even that yielded three sources (all themselves notable) which support notability:
Combined with the other sources Michig mentioned it looks like more than enough to meet the notability standard, even the more specific guideline for bands. I am already working on other articles Trincres17 (another employee of One Little Indian records) created or wished to have created; perhaps Michig and I can work together to help the Wild Palms (band) article better meet Wikipedia standards. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 12:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Randy Shain

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

I'm questioning the currency of the first AfD nomination as although my searches found links here, here, here and here, I'm not sure if this can be improved. I'm notifying John Z although it seems he's not very active but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz still is. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (palaver) 09:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete I'm finding some coverage: Venturebeat, but mostly mentions and quotes (not themselves = notability, but provide some support). The book is held in about 850 WorldCat libraries, which is a moderate showing. I can't find any reviews of the book. If others can find better sources, I'll re-think. LaMona ( talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & LaMona - I also cant nothing but mentions, No evidence of notability - Fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 00:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maybe renominate if still deemed problematic after the cleanup by Biscuittin.  Sandstein  10:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Application of CFD in Thermal Power Plant

Application of CFD in Thermal Power Plant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is completely unreferenced and no links to credible sources in the references. I'm unable to find verification regarding it's the notability or significance of claim. ♔  MONARCH  Talk to me 07:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - would make a great engineering thesis paper but is probably too specific and technical for WP. WP:NOTJOURNAL shoy ( reactions) 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the only specific link I found for this was at Books but nothing else better aside from that. WP:TNT and restart if and when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I have tidied up the article and I think it is now acceptable. Biscuittin ( talk) 19:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interview) 09:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly meets subject specific guideline on multiple accounts. Nomination rationale is fundamentally flawed. Fenix down ( talk) 08:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Matías Escudero

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

Fails WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG and neither of them exist in this page in order to pass the above criteria. NextGenSam619 t@lk 09:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NextGenSam619 t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619 t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619 t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NextGenSam619 t@lk 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Subject does in fact pass WP:NFOOTY, the football-specific notability guideline, by having played in a fully professional league as listed at WP:FPL. In fact, three fully professional leagues. He is currently playing for the reigning Primera División de Chile champions, and contributed with 13 games as they won that title. Before that, he played 147 times for Nueva Chicago in the Primera B Nacional and the Primera B Metropolitana in Argentina, both of which are listed as fully professional. This information is verified in the Soccerway and BDFA external links already present in the article. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 08:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Struway2. Giant Snowman 12:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Struway2. The article definitely needs improvement, not deletion. Please remember WP:BEFORE. —  Jkudlick  t c s 15:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Struway2 passes WP:FOOTY. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY. Nfitz ( talk) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

403 forbidden 寅

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

Fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. Lacking notability since July 2013. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Only sources to iTunes and last.fm, and no reliable independent sources found in search. Classic zero-source non-notable. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 02:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No indication of any independent notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS. -- DAJF ( talk) 11:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as mentioned above, this album doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS and I can't find any reliable sources that discuss or review it. /wia /talk 12:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Rexhep Thaqi

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, never played in a fully professional league Ymblanter ( talk) 07:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subject has not played senior international football and currently does not play in a WP:FPL. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - on account of subject's extraordinary height (183m) 94.12.160.252 ( talk) 21:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Not a valid reason to keep the article. It looks like this comment has been added for fun.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    I corrected the height in the infobox. My !vote still stands. —  Jkudlick  t c s 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lists of Hindus. Consensus is that at this level of generality only a "list of lists" makes sense.  Sandstein  09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Hindus

AfDs for this article:
List of Hindus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous nomination noted that there were over 970 million Hindus. Currently we claim there are over a billion. The only reason why this list isn't bogglingly huge is that (a) nobody is bothering to maintain it, and/or (b) it's difficult to ascertain which of the thousands of Indians we have bios for can be claimed to be Hindus. It's not quite as bad as "List of medieval European Christians" would be, but it's close enough: it's very nearly a "list of all Indians not proven to be not Hindu". Mangoe ( talk) 13:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • That still has the problem of nearly being "list of famous Indians". It's still nearly indiscriminate. Mangoe ( talk) 14:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It's already limited to notable Hindus, i.e., those who have articles. It's simply a matter of style preference that we don't include such self-referential criteria as "notable" in the list title. See WP:LISTNAME: "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs." Confusion on this point seems to be at the heart of many list AFDs, as people mistakenly think titling an article "list of Xs" somehow magically compels us to include every X that exists, and then they say we must delete that straw man. postdlf ( talk) 16:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The lists that you've cited are in fact lists of lists (the exception being the Buddhism list which is a list of Buddhists notable within Buddhism). The article in question is a single list of names which, if properly populated, has the potential to be thousands of names long. I could accept an argument for keeping the article and turning it into a list of list like your examples but keeping it in its current form would be nonsensical and a fairly useless resource. -- Non-Dropframe talk 18:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Big lists are naturally split across many pages. But we're not here to discuss the exact format or structure; that's ordinary editing. We're to decide whether to delete this list topic in its entirety, i.e. make it a red link. That has not been done in those other cases and so it should not be done in this one either. Andrew D. ( talk) 20:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Those are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problems of their own. You can talk about making a composite of lists (which I personally think is a clumsy thing that we shouldn't be doing) and there is maybe one of interest already ( List of converts to Hinduism) but that's really something for a WP:TNT approach: unless someone is going to step up to do that rewrite, now, the list will remain an indiscriminate collection of Indians with bios indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 October 2015
  • They aren't even WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEVENEXIST. Andrew linked us to non-existent lists that redirect to lists of lists. We aren't talking about a list of lists here, we're talking about a list. The deletion of this list does not preclude the creation of lists with narrower scope. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This list is incomplete garbage. I've converted Lists of Hindus from a redirect here to a list of lists, though there are surprising few lists. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete current list, and then Redirect to Lists of Hindus. The current list fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The criteria here, notable people who are or were Hindus are not supported by reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. As to the list of lists mentioned by Non-Dropframe and Clarityfiend, that would be fine, but it is not this list. WP:TNT. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and convert to list of lists per Lugnuts and Andrew D. I honestly don't understand most of the criticism above, which seems to ignore that we almost always limit lists of people to only those who have or merit articles, so the number of Hindus in the world is irrelevant. It's also not credible that who qualifies as "Hindu" is unverifiable, and for this list (and any appropriate sublists) that's all that reliable sources need to support. So keep per WP:LISTPURP and as complementary to Category:Hindus per WP:CLN. Everything else is editing; there are no valid deletion arguments here. postdlf ( talk) 00:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Postdlf: It is fine to keep the title for a "list of lists", but you will have to wipe the existing content to do so. The reason that this list is "indescriminate information" is the same reason that a list of "notable people" would be indescriminate. There are not enough criteria to use to discriminate in any 'meaningful way. A "list of lists" would be just that, each linked list would have to justify itself according to the criteria at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and the policy at WP:NOT. But aside from the title, there is nothing to save here, hence WP:TNT. Articles may be improved during Afd, so if you wanted to wipe the page and do a "list of lists", each having selection criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, as well as narrow enough to meet the challenge of being called indescriminate, then that would be bold. -- Bejnar ( talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure I'm understanding your comment about what you think is "indiscriminate" here; it seems to just represent a point that has already been responded to (including by me) but I don't see anything in this latest comment that reflects that. Beyond that, I don't think TNT is a constructive approach in most cases. postdlf ( talk) 22:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
There are not enough criteria currently in use for the list to discriminate in any meaningful way. That is why a list of lists would work, since there would be additional criteria that would give each list meaning, and greater utlility. That's the difference between indescriminate info and meaningful info. -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I can only understand that as you thinking the "list of [notable people who are verifiably] Hindus" is too broad. But given that you think subdivided lists would not be too broad, and there is substantively no difference between subheaders (as the list currently has) and sublists, you do not have a deletion argument, because no matter what we have a viable topic that can be improved through further editing. Which only leaves you with your TNT opinion, for which there is clearly not consensus. postdlf ( talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
To get a list of list, you will have to remove all the existing content, and its edit history will not be relevent to the resulting article. That's what I am saying. Normally that is called WP:TNT, if you want to call it something else, be my guest. -- Bejnar ( talk) 23:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. To convert this to a list of lists, you would split off the existing content into sublists following WP:SPLIT, thus retaining the history, and then develop each sublist by expanding it. Not every subdivision would merit a separate list, however, and so it would probably make sense to expand first this master list until it got developed to the point where WP:SIZE merited splitting off particular subgroups, to then be replaced within this title by links to those lists, while retaining those subdivisions for which there were few entries. Many of the subcategories in Category:Hindus by nationality have few entries, and so it would not make sense to make separate lists for all of them. Bottom line, deleting this title first helps no one and accomplishes nothing (nor does this discussion for that matter). postdlf ( talk) 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I know it is frustrating, and I empathise. Which means I am not going to convince you that the better way is to put in the existing lists, such as List of Hindu gurus and saints, List of Hindu soldiers, List of Hindu Nobel laureates, List of converts to Hinduism, etc. and then as new lists are developed add them in. -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 06:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Convert to a list of lists. A complete list of notable Hindus would be impractical. Bharatiya29 ( talk) 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redirect - Clearly not an appropriate topic for a list. By "convert", it seems people mean "get rid of this article and create a totally new one on a different topic (lists of Hindus rather than Hindus), then redirect this title to that new article". That's not a sensible outcome for AfD. It's the equivalent of "Redirect to a page that will be created later". If you're using neither the content nor even the title of the article we're discussing, the outcome is delete. If there's a redirect target, we could redirect, but it doesn't make sense to close an afd as "create a redirect target and redirect to it". Deletion doesn't preclude the creation of other articles, lists, or lists or lists, and doesn't preclude redirecting this when an appropriate target emerges. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for creating the list of lists. Updated my !vote to redirect there like the others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kelsely Abaza

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

Overly promotional lovefest for non notable individual. Mix of cruft and hoax.
Some examples of the lies and misrepresentations peppering this article:

Article states "He was signed to the Egyptian record label Mazzika in March 2011, selling in Egypt 290,000 copies of his EP Practic Fast." Sounds impressive. 290,000!! The source used to verify? [57]. An article on another band. No mention of 290,000. No mention of Abaza. No mention of Mazzika.
Article claims "He gained critical acclaim[1] in Egypt following audio-visual multimedia performances in 2011 and 2012." Source used to verify this is a source from 2002, a decade before the claimed concerts. An article about someone else entirely.
Article states "In the same program the presenter stated that the composer's work has "a strange style but [which] is easy to love... [and has] beautiful melodies."". Those qoutes do not appear in the source. Makes no mantion of anyone being a composer.

The section titled "Writing and political views" is pure cruft. It's a personal essay collecting together cherry picked quotes from his work and put together with original research to try give the impression tha Abaza and his writing is significant. There is no independent reporting or analysis of his work anywhere here.
That section is much like the last love letter on him that I know of, Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza. Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza it too was a promo piece built up around qoutes from his work, not around independent coverage.
Another earlier article on him Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza was also deleted at afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza
There is a lack of coverage ABOUT HIM in independent reliable sources.
This bloated mess needs to be deleted. duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The quote you mention is cited wrong. It's from the TV program not the 'Talk like an Egyptian' article. It's at the start of the show. I fixed that. Will check the rest later. Chunkyjunkie1987 ( talk) 07:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
You are right about Mazzika. Kelsely Abaza's own website says that he does not work with them. Also I am fairly sure 'Practic Fast' is not an EP, or was abandoned, not released, or changed title. There is only a remix of it online. I heard it live in Christchurch but it's a song not an EP. (But this is really confusing as he played a song under that title but numbered '8' in his Auckland gig. I know it well as he plays it almost every single gig and it's been renamed 'Sojourn' and has its own music video). The citation about acclaim for the concert in 2011 is about Halim El-Dabh, it's pretty random/clumsy to place it there (I reckon whoever placed it doesn't know Arabic!). Halim El-Dabh did actually make the remarks about Kelsely Abaza. The only mention of this and of the concerts I know of is in the same program cited just before. I messaged Kelsely Abaza's Facebook page asking about this. I'll see how it goes. Problem with writing is that most of it was in the Christchurch Press and Dominion Post, his website only links to two online articles. Chunkyjunkie1987 ( talk) 08:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Oh. But I LOVE his music. Graceaudio ( talk) 08:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC) I go to every gig he does in town. reply
Also; his official website states clearly that he is going to play in NEW ZEALAND in 2016. No word about Egypt. The TV show is confused/confusing! Chunkyjunkie1987 ( talk) 14:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nothing notable showing up in NZ media. Has one mention of a concert but that was promotional. NealeFamily ( talk) 03:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Does not look to be notable ( WP:GNG), but at best this is a WP:TNT scenario, with too much questionable or promotional content and almost all of it contributed by sock puppets. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I see no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable, nothing showing up on searches. Plagued by self-promotional socks, it's verging on hoax. DeCausa ( talk) 21:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgia Tech–Tennessee football rivalry

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

Poorly-sourced and probably insignificant rivalry. Most of the "coverage" seems to be hyping up the fact that the game will be played for the first time in 30 years come 2017. p b p 04:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It appears that this was a notable rivalry in the past--and once notability is achieved it cannot be taken away. The NBC article does reference it as a "rivalry" also. Beef it up, don't delete.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Paulmcdonald: The NBC Sports "article" is obviously a minimally rewritten canned press release from the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game committee. It mentions the word "rivalry," but the coverage hardly rises to the level of "significant coverage" under the general notability guidelines. Have you found any significant coverage of this series as a traditional college rivalry in the past? Perhaps including a discussion of the "rivalry" history, traditions, and significance to the respective teams, universities, student bodies and alumni? In the absence of significant coverage sufficient for a stand-alone article, nothing prevents coverage of this "rivalry" in the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and Tennessee Volunteers football articles. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Surely if there is a rivalry given the listing of games it deals with Bobby Dodd. However, I can find nothing in newspapers, and in my experience with southern football and the SEC (a pretty firm grasp from before 1933 and after 1989), it is not one of which I have ever heard. Cake ( talk) 18:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ MisterCake: You may want to give this one another look. I initially thought it was a "delete" but have changed my mind after looking more closely. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Vote withdrawn. Yes, I already planned to change my vote to something more ambivalent, thanks for the reminder. It takes some digging to find things about it, but there do seem multiple notable games, and there are sources which call it a "rivalry". Still surprised I've found little mention of Dodd as part of the rivalry as cited above. Cake ( talk) 18:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. This one is not clearcut, but I lean to the "delete" side based on the limited coverage I've seen so far. Will reconsider if more coverage is found. Since the two teams haven't played in almost 30 years, it is certainly not an active rivalry. In considering whether it constituted a rivalry historically, we need to dig deeper. In considering some of the intangible measures of a rivalry, I note the following: (1) trophy: No; (2) identifiable name associated with series: No; (3) length and frequency of play: Medium (series began in 1902, 43 games played in the 85 years thereafter, 35-year gap from 1911-1946, peak in 1950s-1960s, no games since 1987 but plans to renew in 2017); (4) prominence of the programs: High (two of the great powers in Southern football history - 4 national titles for Tech, 6 for Tennessee); (5) geographical proximity: Close (bordering states and only 214 miles from Knoxville to Atlanta); and (6) competitiveness - Good (series has been relatively close with Tennessee holding a 24-17 edge). Both pros and cons on intangibles; this one probably has to rise or fall based on the extent of the historical coverage. In addition to the NBC blurb found in the article, a quick search of newspapers.com turns up the following: (1) this from 1957 calling it a "fierce" football rivalry and claiming that "the Vol-Tech rivalry attained classic status" in 1956 (more like this would sway me to vote "keep"); and (2) this AP game account from 1962 referring to the two programs as rivals but having no depth regarding rivalry. If this were a true rivalry, I would expect to see more coverage of the game as a significant rivalry in the 1950s and 1960s. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Good find on the one about '56. It was between AP #2 and AP #3 and the underdog won. Will dig about for info pertaining to that one. Here is a similar source. Here is video. Cake ( talk) 09:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Cake. The 1957 UP article is a good one. This raises a broader point. Where two schools have a long history of play, and have had at least a couple great, classic games between them, does this elevate the series to the level of a traditional rivalry? Typically not. Should such series nevertheless be covered in Wikipedia as a notable series (e.g., "Georgia Tech - Tennessee football series")? Under existing precedent, the answer has been no. The existing practice may or may not be correct, and this may be a broader discussion worth having at some point. For example, in the case of Michigan (the team with which I am most familiar), we do not have stand-alone articles concerning Michigan's series with Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, or Northwestern. These series are not "rivalries", but in each case there have been a number of historical games where the two teams met in classic games when both were among the top teams in the country. I'm not advocating a change in policy at this time, but "Georgia Tech - Tennessee" might qualify, if at all, as a notable "series" rather than as a true "rivalry". Cbl62 ( talk) 15:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Hmmm . . . The focus in these AfDs has always been on whether a series qualifies as traditional "rivalry". This may not be the correct analysis in all cases. There are likely some long-standing "series" that are notable under WP:GNG even though they are not "rivalries". It may be that we are struggling to fit square pegs into round holes. Some of these square pegs may be notable even though they don't fit into the "rivalry" hole. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree. In my own area of research, I have wondered whether I should add a bit about Michigan and Texas to the Vandy article. I trust you know about the Michigan series, and for 7 out of 8 seasons before the Red River rivalry gets played regularly between OU-UT at the state fair, it was Vandy-UT. Perhaps it can be done like how the Florida Gators article deals with Alabama. Georgia-Yale, and other regularly scheduled intersectional contests, are worth consideration for mention somewhere, even if perhaps an article on the rivalry is overkill. Maybe a game article for the Tech-Tennessee '56 matchup? Cake ( talk) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I created Illinois–Michigan football series concerning a notable, non-rivalry, series. A square peg that meets WP:GNG on its own merit. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I expanded 1922 Michigan vs. Vanderbilt football game to include the prior games even though there's one more meeting, perhaps a similar case. Cake ( talk) 16:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Having looked more deeply at this series, I am changing my vote to "Keep". Whether or not it qualifies as a "traditional rivalry", this qualifies as a notable, historical football series. The series dates back to 1902, will soon be revived, and reached a peak of competitiveness from 1946 to 1970 when both teams were football powerhouses. During that time, there were a number of classic games in which both teams were highly ranked or in which unranked Tennessee squads (four times, actually) upset highly-ranked Georgia Tech teams. The games drew national press coverage and, in some cases, national television coverage in an era when national TV coverage was not common. With coverage like this calling it a "fierce" football rivalry and claiming that "the Vol-Tech rivalry attained classic status", it could be considered a notable rivalry, though I think a move to Georgia Tech–Tennessee football series might be more apt. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Or better yet, perhaps the content could be added to the various single-season articles about the Tennessee Volunteers from 1946 to 1970, the overwhelming majority of which presently exist as two and three-sentence stubs that do not even mention Georgia Tech . . . and form the core of new Georgia Tech single-season articles that have yet to be created. Those single-game descriptions already have a home without creating an entirely new class of articles. Robbing content from one class of articles (single-season articles) to create a new class ("football series") . . . . is what exactly? Not including this core content in the single-season articles makes the single-season articles redundant. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
" Robbing content" -- seriously? Single-season articles have a horizontal and tree-level focus on one team in a particular year, whereas rivalry/series articles have a vertical and forest-level focus, examining the interaction between two programs against a historical, multi-year perspective. I think the multi-year, historical perspective is very useful and in no way takes away from, or renders "redundant", single-season articles. I would typically expect the season articles to have more detailed accounts of each game, and a rivalry/series article to have a more forest-level approach to the historical interaction. No reason both classes of article can't co-exist, and indeed, they already do. Of course, there are WP:GNG limits on both classes of article. I am in no way suggesting that every series warrants this type of historical treatment in a separate article, only those which are truly notable. Happy to discuss the parameters/limits for such articles in another forum if you'd like. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
We already summarize individual games in multiple articles. For example, the November 1887 Michigan-Notre Dame game is discussed in at least three places: (1) 1887 ND, (2) 1887 Mich, and (3) Mich-ND rivalry. Each article serves a different, valid purpose. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Seriously. Focus on the problem, not the metaphor. In your newly created Illinois vs. Michigan "series" article, almost every one of the game summaries is a duplicate of content that should exist in the non-existent Illinois single-game articles. Instead of building the single-season articles you have advocated in the past, you now have proposed the creation of a competitor class. Stripped of the individual game summaries, the one to three-paragraph "forest-level" summary of the series properly belongs in the parent articles about the two teams. Creating a new class of articles for notable, non-rivalry series is poorly conceived and the content in most instances will be redundant to single-season articles and parent team articles. We are already unable to police rivalry articles in a meaningful way, largely because of the fragmented and often shallow views on what constitutes "significant coverage" per GNG; expanding the field to so-called "notable series" loosens an already ill-defined standard, and the expansion will not be restricted to a few "meaningful" series. It will be the exception that swallows the rule, as every series will become a separate article -- the only difference being that we will call it a "series" rather than a "rivalry". Most of our rivalry articles exist as a series record table with minimal introductory text, and this will be exactly the pattern for your proposed new class of "series" articles. Stop and think before you go down this path; the consequences are obvious. It is not an accident that no other sports WikiProject has conceived of a comparable class of articles as you are now proposing. What we will have is a confusing mess of team articles, season articles, rivalry articles, and series articles, where it is unclear where content is supposed to go, and where the content of articles will duplicate, and in some cases contradict, each other. The creation of an entirely new class of articles really needs to be a carefully considered decision of WikiProject College football, and not as an aside of an AfD, and not decided in a moment of "enthusiasm". Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The consequence I foresee, if appropriately limited to truly notable series, is the enrichment of the encyclopedia with historical perspective on notable series. The merits of Illinois–Michigan football series (or Chicago–Purdue football rivalry, as another recently-created example) is not the subject of this AfD, but I'm happy to discuss the merits of that article on its talk page if you would like. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
In all fairness to DL, Cbl62, this situation was discussed before, back in July 2012. So, there is a certain amount of prior consensus here, as far as "series" articles go. As for this article, in particular, I'm not going to vote here, one way or the other, simply because I'm not familiar enough with SEC football to be able to contribute intelligently on this particular subject. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that we neither need or want any "Boston College–Iowa State football series" type articles (not that people haven't tried), but in order to prevent them we probably do need to draw the line, somewhere. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 01:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
You are right, Ej, I did say in 2012 that non-rivalry "series" articles should be discouraged (as in the case of Ole Miss-Notre Dame that you linked). I still hold that position for the most part, but my view has softened a bit since then, and there are some series that are so clearly notable (I submit that Illinois–Michigan football series fits that bill) that we ought to have coverage. Of course, the tricky part is where to draw the line, and we'll have to work through that issue, though that discussion is probably better handled outside the context of this AfD. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunate to see two of the best editors in these parts so often go at it. Hopefully it is sometimes fruitful. I must say I see more of cbl62's side, and see nothing wrong with covering a team's games for a notable season as well as for a notable opponent to bridge the gap and build the web between single games and all of conference, conference seasons, and teams. Guided by the assessment section, here is my imperfect, Titian-inspired rendition of our knowledge tree at WPCFB: 1. The vertical dimension represents importance and the lines of interaction as a set to its members, and thus should go both ways. Cake ( talk) 01:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This was a rivalry before Georgia Tech left the SEC. Even when Tech left the SEC they still meet annually. When they announced that Tech-UT to play in 2017 in Atlanta, it mentions “This will be the renewing of a long and beloved rivalry that’s been off the board for far too long,” said Percy Vaughn, Peach Bowl, Inc. chairman in a released statement. “And it’s a great addition to the long-standing ACC vs. SEC rivalry games we have been able to put together.” [1] CollegeRivalry ( talk), 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Honorata De Guzman-Manalo

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

Only references on Google were to her family. Is she independently notable? I dream of horses ( C) @ 04:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( C) @ 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( C) @ 04:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
What's the connection between Iglesia ni Cristo and the proposed deletion, out of curiosity? There's a connection with a family member (her husband), but what about Honorata's role in the church makes her notable? /wia /talk 14:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm not seeing anything here either but fanaticism from members of the sect.-- RioHondo ( talk) 02:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies ( talk) 03:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Christian Drapeau

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

Author/academic with no apparent claim of notability. Tagged for notability since early 2010 without improvement, no better sources found. Article creator shares a name with the publishing house of a couple of subject's books. -- Finngall talk 18:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak keep, Enough news sources cover him in both a positive and negative light that I think he's... just barely deserving. Note that in the Huffpost article by Raymond L. Flynn, Flynn is noted as an advisor to Drapeau's company, while in other articles like this one in the Boston Herald, he is not. This article appears in the Le Devoir, although it is a bit promotional in tone. Perhaps more interesting in terms of balance are articles like this one calling his work a "load of bollocks". I think it would be good for there to be a balanced source on his notable yet controversial 'work', rather than no source at all. New Media Theorist ( talk) 03:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now but draft and userfy if needed as I'm not seeing much to convince to even weak keep as I found hardly much aside from passing mentions at Books, News, browser and Highbeam. If this can be better improved, feel free but I'm not seeing much to convince me at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from more participants. sst ✈ 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Author of books with very little significance -- most have only 5 or so holdings in worldcat. His stem cell book has 37 holdings, which for a popular science work on this topics is insignificant also. Google Scholar shows some early papers on algae if it's the same person, and it might be because of a previous fad in the use of algae in human nutrition. Doesn't raise to the level of notability here either. No academic position that I can trace. Not just delete for now, but delete. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jay-P

AfDs for this article:
Jay-P (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still not WP:MUSIC. Overly promotional article on rapper lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. No good charting, gold, rotation, major awards. Charting mention are bad charts and are not verified. Award mentioned is minor and not verified. Like last time the article is bombarded with sources but none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. The source claimed as CNN is from CNN ireport where users can post articles and is not by CNN and is not veted by them. The MTV source is not by them, it's "content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form." In this case Jay-P's official biography. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The Hollybush, Stockton Brook

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

I notice a lot of articles for British pubs but I'm not seeing anything to suggest better notability and improvement to this with my best search results here, here and here so unless this is locally significant and notable, their website seems to have changed to something Chinese and the pub still seems to be open albeit several changes (such as becoming an Italian place) the past few years. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Can't find anything to distinguish this from thousands of other pub/restaurants in the UK. In most cases, pubs have articles because the building is historic, listed or otherwise notable. I can't find any evidence that this is the case here. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing in searches shows how this particular pub is notable. Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Åke Raask

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

Questionably notable and my searches found nothing better than this so unless archived sources can be found and are enough, there's nothing to suggest obvious improvement for this article existing since March and April 2005 ( Ake Raask would also have to be deleted). SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches did not turn up anything on the subject which meets the notability criteria for either WP:NFICT or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Trance Around the World

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

fails GNG. also NOTADVERT / PROMO. Widefox; talk 01:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. samtar ( msg) 08:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now unless it can actually be improved as all I found was some links at Books, News and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they meet notability criteria. Some hits, but not enough in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Group Therapy Radio

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

fails GNG Widefox; talk 02:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now and draft & userfy if anyone wants as although I found some links at Books, News and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I also can not find reliable sources.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

William Larned Mercy Pendleton

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

It's difficult to find information about this painter, and it looks like he just wasn't/isn't historically notable. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 02:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I tried a search without his middle names and came up with some refs that confirm his existence as apainter, and a few images: a) page with a bio that matches the wiki article, b) a google book mention that has him copying a painting for the city of Philadelphia, c) A google books ref that looks like a record of painting in the State of Virginia's inventory, likely the painting hanging in the Virginia State Supreme court mentioned in the previous ref, and d) another google books ref calling him a painter and describing his work. That's enough to swing it to Keep for me. If I can find four mentions in digitized sources for someone who died a hundred and fifty years ago, there have to be a lot more in print sources. New Media Theorist ( talk) 06:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete' - I was patrolling articles and came across this one and would have added a speedy deletion tag if it had not already been tagged by the great editor before me. There is no indication as to why this living person is notable.  ' Olowe2011 Talk 00:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Olowe2011, you missed an important fact in your analysis: he is dead. Birth date was 1865. New Media Theorist ( talk) 03:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
'Response: New Media Theorist The article says was so I assumed they had pasted away. But thanks for teaching me the value of not assuming things.  ' Olowe2011 Talk 03:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - "for someone who died a hundred and fifty years ago"? Well, he was born 150 years ago, he died in 1934. Bolding whole trivial comments? Please read WP:AFDFORMAT. The middle names are misspelled, the painter was named after his grandfather William Learned Marcy. Kraxler ( talk) 02:50, 2 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! 07:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  18:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mickey DeLorenzo

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

At worst, the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Main coverage is [58] [59] and apart from that, just passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. At best, he's still a WP:BLP1E and his press coverage is limited exclusively to his Wii exercise experiment. He is not known outside this one event. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. –  czar 05:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as the best I found for him was one Books link. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Wii Fit: The two sources presented by nom should be enough to make a mention of the real-life benefits of the game in the article. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:24, 1 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! 07:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I didn't think the articles covered him in depth enough to warrant a redirect. It's not going to be a common search term for the Wii Fit and I don't see how info about him (by name) could be added without being trivia. czar 03:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
This post on a Philadelphia newspaper blog seems good since the author is a writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, another article from a community newspaper there, and Fox all talk about him in-depth. There are also smaller mentions in The Washington Post, Time Magazine, IGN, and a number of others. In other words, there are good articles out there, they just weren't actually in our article.
As far as a merge goes, I think with as well-documented as this is, it wouldn't be crufty to mention it in passing. I'm not sure it's enough for a full article like Jared Fogle has, but notable nonetheless. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Predikto

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. None of the claimed 'awards and recognition' are notable. The bulk of sources available are press releases, reprints of press releases or common reporting on funding or contract awards. Jbh Talk 03:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 03:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I'm not seeing anything obviously better. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 11:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails to meet notability criteria. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 15:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'. Unfortunately for the one keep voter, their argument is a variation on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Drmies ( talk) 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ole Miss–Tennessee football rivalry

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

The Ole Miss-Tennessee college football game series is not notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage -- as a traditional college football rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Instances of mainstream coverage in reliable sources of this purported "rivalry" are trivial, and any significant coverage of this series as a rivalry is only found on fan sites, blogs and other non-reliable or non-independent sources that are not suitable for establishing notability per GNG. The independence and reliability of sources mentioning this series as a "rivalry" will be a key aspect in this discussion: if sources are not independent (no athletic department releases, yearbooks, school newspapers, etc.) and reliable (no blogs, fansites, etc.), they cannot be used to sustain the subject's notability. Any mentions of this series as a rivalry in mainstream news sources should be substantial, i.e., not trivial mentions of a "rivalry," but substantial discussions of the series' history, traditions, and significance as a "rivalry". This article was previously submitted for proposed deletion per WP:PROD on October 2nd, but the article creator removed the PROD tag without explanation on October 5th. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Here are some relevant key word searches:

  • "Ole Miss-Tennessee football rivalry" (Google search): [60] 11 hits for quoted phrase, all Wikipedia article or process pages, or mirror articles/pages;
  • "Ole Miss Tennessee football rivalry" (Google search): [61] 10 hits for quoted phase, all Wikipedia article or process pages, or mirror articles/pages;
  • "Ole Miss-Tennessee rivalry" (Google search): 0 hits for quoted phrase;
  • "Ole Miss Tennessee rivalry" (Google search): 0 hits for quoted phrase.

These are are good places for AfD discussion participants' to begin their WP:BEFORE due diligence. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of substantive, much less significant, coverage in independent reliable sources, hence failling WP:GNG. No special claim of notability is made. All of the sources are blogs, non-reliable or non-independent sources. Doubtless sources could be added to verify the scores and dates of the games, but those would not add toward notability of the rivalry. Old newspapers via Google and via Newspaper Archives Online don't seem to regard this as a "rivalry". Unlike the Mississippi–Mississippi State football rivalry or the Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry, which, by the way, is sorely lacking in citation to independent, reliable sources, for which newspaper articles detailing the rivalry can be found. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Bejnar: The Auburn-Tennessee rivalry article is on my list of rivalry articles to review for notability. As a threshold matter, however, Auburn-Tennessee was recognized by southeastern sports commentators of as one of the better SEC annual home-and-away series that got dumped when the SEC expanded and went to divisional play in 1992. (The other was Auburn-Florida, which ceased to be annual in 2002). I have seen numerous mentions of the Auburn-Tennessee series as a traditional "rivalry," certainly more so than this one, but it remains to be seen if it would survive GNG scrutiny. Some of these old CFB series, including this one, require a considerable amount of WP:BEFORE background research in Newspapers.com, Google News Archive, Google Books, etc., before nominating one for AfD. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
In doing my due diligence for this Afd, the rivalries that came up most often were the Mississippi–Mississippi State football rivalry and the Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry. I agree that sometimes background research is tedious, the more so as it tends towards comprehensiveness. I would suggest to CollegeRivalry that he or she obtain a subscription to Newspaper Archives Online, often free at larger public libraries, or physically visit the morgues (newspaper archives at the newspaper) of relevant newspapers, and find citations to independent sources prior to writing new articles. Magazines such as Time and Newsweek used to have an occasional story on college football rivalries in their sports section. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Frankly, I wouldn't dream of starting a new CFB rivalry article without sourcing it in depth. Of course, all of the established rivalries I would want to work on already have articles. If you want to see examples of properly sourced CFB rivalry articles, take a look at Auburn–Florida football rivalry and Florida–Georgia football rivalry and their footnotes; for unquestionably notable rivalries, there are usually multiple feature articles in newspapers and sports magazines, as well as stand-alone books about the specific rivalry. These rivalry AfDs drive me nuts because people will find a 1935 newspaper article that mentions an "annual rivalry" and then argue that as the basis for something meaningful. Part of the problem is many AfD participants don't agree on what constitutes "significant coverage." Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Winsipedia is not a reliable source, and the only other source is an ESPN article that does not contain the word "rivalry" at all. This looks like original research to me, but if it's not it still doesn't pass WP:GNG or any other notability guideline I can find.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. In addition to Dirtlawyer's research, I conducted a number of searches on newspapers.com and found nothing treating the Tennessee - Ole Miss series as a rivalry, and certainly nothing with any depth. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Weren't these two teams part of the 1969 "Mule Game"? I that could be the rivalry that has since faded. MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 06:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
MurderByDeadcopy is referring to the November 15, 1969 game in which Mississippi trounced Tennessee 38 to 0. There was a lot of excitment before that game because Tennessee was ranked #3 in the nation. -- Bejnar ( talk) 08:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The background is that coach Johnny Vaught trolled his own players (to motivate them) by having a plane drop leaflets over the Ole Miss practice field that said " Archie Who?" and quoted the UT player who compared Ole Miss to a "bunch of mules" when asked by a reporter if Ole Miss had "a bunch of horses?" Classic bulletin board game, fun SEC history game, mention belongs in the 1969 season articles. Still not a classic traditional rivalry though. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I'd also say many "classic" rivalries come and go. Is wiki getting rid of history because it cannot be found online? Good info on a subject such as this may be more difficult to discover. Florida at one time always played Miami as their first game of the year which gave that game a sense of rivalry. Then it was changed in 1987 and gone was that intense conflict between those two (oddly enough that rivalry is on wiki [62]). I genuinely laugh (and also am a bit sad) when articles end up in AFD without being given some time to grow. Sure, if an article's a commercial or completely laughable (even those sometimes don't get deleted [63]), but this article is neither. I, also, strongly believe that before anyone ever creates an article, they should spend time in AFD. It's given me a very cynical viewpoint on the subject. MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 16:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree rivalries come and go, and assume we are fine with rivalries of a more historical than contemporary significance. e. g. 1, 2, 3. The problem is whether said historical rivalry meets the notability criteria, and whether every regular, conference opponent constitutes a "rivalry." I have mixed feelings about this rivalry too, and thus have left myself out of the voting part. Cake ( talk) 03:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep After finding the Miami vs Florida rivalry on wiki [64] (which really surprised me), I strongly believe that this article is just as notable! Yep, I'm going against the grain on this one (even though I realize which way this will go seeing as whom I'm up against), but I'm sticking my neck out on this one anyway. Wikipedia is so fickle when it comes to applying its own rules! MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 18:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/20/georgia-tech-tennessee-confirmed-for-2017-chick-fil-a-kickoff-game/
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_October_10&oldid=1142624492"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE