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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Henk van de Ven (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

References consist of three news articles about his election, council confirmation of mayoralty, opening a museum, and a self-published source. These do not satisfy the criterion of "significant press coverage" as required in WP:POLITICIAN. If all he has done is to get elected and open a museum, notability has not been established. WWGB ( talk) 23:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep This is ridiculous. The reason that the references are so low is because that it is still in development! There is also "significant press coverage" as well. Notability is assured. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I eagerly await further "significant press coverage", other than the revelation that he plays golf! WWGB ( talk) 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Mayor of reasonably large city, sufficient sources to pass GNG, should have been tagged for expansion and additional referencing rather than being nominated for deletion. This kind of nomination of a notable person because the nominator can't be arsed doing any research is unhelpful. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

My "arse", as you so eloquently put it, has searched for evidence that the subject is more than a regional political hack. My arse could not find any further evidence. WWGB ( talk) 02:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

By 'regional political hack' I hope you mean mayor of Albury. You either haven't done enough research or don't like Albury. I don't think the latter is true. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Anyway, I have currently been doing a lot of edits to improve the page. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete There are a few sources regarding his suspension from a local golf club but I can't find the sort of coverage that is required by WP:GNG. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• There are others; keep looking. Think of it like a plane taking off. More and more should start showing up soon/now. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 09:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• And anyway, all that stuff about golf is slightly dated. There are more sources out there, however + see The Drover's Wife and my above comments. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 09:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Also, this article meets the standards required. What's more to say? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Saying that it meets the standards is not proof that it does. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm open to convincing here, but I don't see the coverage myself. I don't think being mayor of Albury makes him automatically notable, especially as it's not a directly elected position. The creator says "there are others: keep looking". Well, OK, I've looked, without success. Maybe you could actually provide some? What is in the article right now is not sufficient. It's true that it's incumbent upon AfD participants to do some research themselves, but it's also true that it's hardly useful to withhold evidence if you have it (especially if it helps your cause!). Frickeg ( talk) 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

All the sources I can find with a Google search. BTW I have found no written ones yet.:

• [1] * [2] * [3] * [4] * [5] * [6] * [7] * [8] * [9] * [10] * [11] * [12]* [13]* [14]* [15]* [16]

I also have seen a few articles with fewer. A bad example, a better example, another, R. Kandaswami and Stephen Canessa. I'm sure there are plenty more. None of these get over 3 sources, compared to my 16! All I have to do now is get information from them and add that to the article. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Other stuff exists is not an argument for retention. The sources you've provided do not, by my reading, constitute "significant and independent" coverage per WP:GNG. I would want to see a degree of coverage from a non-local media body, say the SMH. Frickeg ( talk) 07:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

References van de Ven as deputy mayor, and this is non-local. This too. The article now cites a primary secondary and tertiary source. BTW is this self-published source? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 08:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The quality, not the quantity, of the references is what is important. This source was added as a non-local citation [17] to "van de Ven was first elected to Council in 2004 and then served four terms as Deputy Mayor", but all it supports is "van de Ven was" and "Deputy Mayor". It's redundant as the existing citation already supports the sentence. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

A tertiary source? I am intrigued. What would that be? WWGB ( talk) 09:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

While making my last post I noticed that some of the content in the article had been copied almost word for word from this page, which constitutes a copyright violation. Accordingly, the content has been removed, leaving only two sentences in the article. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay, I made a mistake. There is no tertiary. But I am working on emulating the copy-and-pasted information to Wikpedia. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

And This source does support he was deputy mayor for a while along with this page. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Have you two even seen t h e s e? They all have 3 refs or less! The Henk van de Ven page has 6 for a lede and an infobox!! Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

National and state politicians are inherently notable. They require a minimum of one source to prove they filled that role. Local pollies, on the other hand, have a higher burden of proof. To be notable they are people about whom "significant press coverage" has been written, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. WWGB ( talk) 21:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

They have! I have already shown you my list which is written by at least one non-local source and in-depth. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Oh look, Koavf himself edited the page. BTW guys 7 refs for a lede and an infobox. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 02:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Again, it's the quality of the references, not the number. Simply adding sources doesn't prove notability. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The refs are of quality. Two government ones, one self-published the rest are a mix of more than one news source. Notability is proven. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 06:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You're missing the point. You said BTW guys 7 refs for a lede and an infobox as if this was in some way impressive. It's not. There are TV episodes with more refs and an infobox. Of the sources in the article, there are two from Albury City Council confirming his position on Council. This is not unusual for councillors. There is another from a local newspaper also confirming his election by other councillors. Also not unusual. The same newspaper editor also tweeted about the election, and this tweet is repeated in the newspaper article. Together these really count as just a single source. Then there is a press release about the Murray Art Museum Albury getting a facelist. Van de Ven is not the subject of that press release and his mention does not constitute significant coverage. Similarly, the source from psnews.com.au addresses the museum's facelift and the mention of van de Ven is not significant coverage in that source either. The ENZED source is just a staff directory, so it isn't significant. The two Albury City Council sources and the ENZED source are primary sources. They are not independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG. Of all the sources, only the newspaper report/tweet really goes to establishing notability. I actually found better sources online for me, and I'm mentioned in two Wikipedia articles by name. Just because you can find sources for someone doesn't mean those sources establish notability. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please give me a few hours to form a reply. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

How about the Borderline archive source? That's independent. And the MAMA article references van de Ven being mayor and opening the museum which means he is doing mayoral duties. And I'm sure they will be a few written sources I haven't even found yet. You are just bedding Wikipedia policy to suit your needs. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Let's put some context around this gentleman. He was elected mayor less than five weeks ago. Prior to that event, sources identify that he was a migrant, small businessman, golfer and deputy mayor. None of these are of themselves notable roles. So any notability must be derived since his election. Being a mayor is not itself notable, it is about what is achieved in the position. During those five weeks, he has co-opened a museum. We really need longer so see how his tenure unfolds. If he has significant achievements, like introducing major legislation or leading a new development, then his notability is established. After just five weeks as mayor, he has not had time to establish notability. 202.47.84.1 ( talk) 23:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

On the "About us" page, Borderline says content is satirical, parody, factual and occasionally beyond. On the page that you linked to earlier, [18] the linked stories look very amateurish and the site owner's ABN has been cancelled. All of this makes the site look like a self-published source so it doesn't qualify as a reliable source and therefore can't be used to establish notability. As for the MAMA article, that certainly demonstrates that he was mayor but, as pointed out above by 202.47.84.1, being mayor isn't in itself notable. This is especially true when the mayor is elected by a vote of other councillors rather than by a public vote. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay, it looks like this page is going to go. (For now). Expect this page to back in six months or so when there are more sources. Should I request deletion to speed up the process? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 23:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You can't, because there is another keep vote. Just let the discussion run its course. Frickeg ( talk) 00:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Its funny how people keep editing the article. I guess they want it to die happy. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 02:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply

We prefer to keep articles if we can, so we still keep editing them in the hope that we can improve them. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay. Maybe this page can stay. It certainly is much better now. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 04:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as per nom, AussieLegend and Frickeg. Does not meet WP:NPOL, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per above, he does not meet NPOL and nothing comes up when I search. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 18:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Merritt Kopas (  | 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 lacks sufficient support to establish notability. Majority of references lack independence; others are primary. Article lacks independent secondary support. reddogsix ( talk) 23:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I have to confess complete bewilderness as to why somebody would write a game called Consensual Torture Simulator, but it takes all sorts and Kopas does turn up in multiple news and book hits. I have dropped some better sources into the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Ritchie, when commenting on a BLP like this, please constrain your comments to notability matters, not your "bewilderness" about the subject's art form. Not least also because BLP subjects pay attention.  — Scott • talk 23:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Scott: I think that came out wrong, all I meant was I've tried to improve the article, just it's been difficult as it's on a subject I'm unfamiliar with. I'm certainly not trying to belittle Ms Kopas' efforts at all and that I don't understand things is my problem, not theirs. Please give them my apologies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Fringe indie notable. Further coverage. [19] [20] [21] - hahnch e n 20:14, 27 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. KTC ( talk) 14:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Imeni Molotova (  | 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 place does not exist. Everything named after Molotov was forcibly renamed in 1957. There are no sources, and have never been. The coords point out to a place where there is no settlement, just mountains. I tried to search (in Russian) whether such a place existed and was not successfull. There was Molotovabad in Osh Oblast, which was indeed renamed in 1957, but I am not sure this is the same thing. If we knew that such place existed and what it was renamed to, we could replace the article by a redirect, but for the time being I am unsure what the redirect target would be. The creator did not edit Wikipedia since 2009. Ymblanter ( talk) 23:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I suppose if there's no better improvement and alternative. Pinging Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The only place I found with this name was in Yakutsk, but even that had nothing on the map. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 04:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom and above editors. Cannot find anything to correlate this place with an actual place. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 14:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Failed crowdsourcing project; "sources" are either regurgitated press releases, or the subject's own website and publicity. Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom. Tiggerjay ( talk) 01:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Pinging Chriswaterguy. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom. Thanks for the ping. -- Chriswaterguy talk 07:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show it passes either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

A local judge who fails WP:GNG. The only reference for this article is a paid obituary. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete couldn't find anything in News about him. As always, I am open to changing my vote if presented with more sources. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete No reliable sources. The Avengers ( talk) 00:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my standards. Local judges are usually not notable. Bearian ( talk) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, notable judge on two levels of court; no more Internet information is available on him for some reason. He appears never to have had an opponent; he is not listed in any of the election returns from the Secretary of State's office in Baton Rouge. When candidates are not listed on this valuable site, it means they ran unopposed. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 03:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Commment @ Billy Hathorn: False claims in paid obituaries take place. Here is an example [22]. A baseball player's family claiming he was the #1 pick. Unfortunately the first draft of baseball players took place after their relative had already appeared in the majors. A more famous case, is the man who claimed to be the ex major leaguer Bill Henry [23]. He had his family and friends fooled. Back to Ballard. If this Judge is notable, there would be something out there with his name on it. A ruling in a case, something. So frankly it appears he either isn't a high ranking judge, or the obituary claims are false. As you should know, paid obituaries fail WP:RS. There is no evidence of this man's notability. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:06, 29 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. Ignoring the WP:SPA comments, near unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Step Forward Pakistan (  | 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 organization. There are no reliable independent sources. Organisation has good cause of spreading love and peace as they are claiming in article but it is non-notable. Article is created by user named Usmanawan68 and founder of this organization has same name as claimed in article. Human3015 ^TALK  20:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk) 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep This page has much more information with valid reference. This is most popular organization in Pakistan and people need information ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan9127 ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 October 2015 — Zeeshan9127 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Step Forward Pakistan is a popular organization which is working positively in major institutes of Pakistan. So i support this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namanahmad ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Namanahmad ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep This Page Step Forward Pakistan is a very popular NGO. Article has proper information and source. So it will be a great step to publish this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrana ayub ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Samrana ayub ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  Above "keep" voters doesn't have any other contribution than commenting here. I am not against this organization and I think any good work should be encouraged but I found this page while New Page patrolling and it is just duty of an editor to nominate things for deletion which fails WP:GNG. I think creator of this article should provide some independent reliable sources. It maybe too soon to create page on this if this organization is new, I think deletion of this page will be inspiration for this organization because they will think that they should do more social work in large scale so that independent media will cover them, will write about them and Wikipedia article can be created on this organization someday. Best luck.-- Human3015 ^TALK  19:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. The organization clearly fails WP:CORP. I cannot find any significant coverage on it. That is all that matters in this discussion. Dispensing with the WP:SPA (possible sockpuppet) "keep" arguments: A "valid" reference is not coverage, existence does not equal notability, popularity does not equal notability, and good works do not equal notability. If no signifcant reliable coverage exists that is independent of the organization, then Wikipedia cannot keep the article. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  SPI initiated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usmanawan68 ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Google News returns no hits for this organization [27]. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have seen many of projects by this NGO. I suggest to keep it GreenCricket ( talk) 15:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. All the keep votes are on the lines of "it's an NGO", which doesn't matter on Wiki- also, the number of SPA suggests meat/ WP:SOCK/sockpuppetry. Joseph2302 ( talk) 10:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - searches say it ails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Dag Creative Media (  | 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:CORP notability. Notability is not inherited from film awards. Brianhe ( talk) 19:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Skyllfully ^{( talk} | _contribs) 20:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Skyllfully ^{( talk} | _contribs) 20:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Skyllfully ^{( talk} | _contribs) 20:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as the best I found was this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

deeper searches:

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: "Dag Creative" "Dag Creative Media" "Rana Sarka"

• Comment: It seems this company gets a lot of mentions in multiple sources. While I am not so willing to simply suggest a delete, the article needs to be expanded and far better sourced for me to opine a keep. WP:SEP under WP:ITJ anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

In some cases I'm eager to expand tne article after good sources are uncovered, but because of WP:BOGO, not this one. See WP:COIN#Raju Kapuria and others ( permlink) for reasons why I think this article is tainted. Others may have a different conclusion, which is fine, but this is mine. – Brianhe ( talk) 13:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non-notable company heavily edited by SPAs that has been WP:BOMBARDed with unreliable links, mostly from company itself. The two reliably sourced links are trivial mentions. I'm guessing some of the editors have a COI with the advertising agency. If article is kept it will need to be heavily edited. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 19:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep and clean up. Though the sources are generally poor at the moment (generally niche trade mags and websites) The Globe and Mail] (a large circulation general news source) seems to have several meatier news articles about the company. They did win a top global award after all, therefore seem to have achieved some success. Unfortunately any advertising agency worth its salt will be good at self publicity, so editors will need to keep an eye on it! Sionk ( talk) 21:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Could you provide links to the "several meatier news articles" you mention? There is only one article by the Globe on the page and it's mostly about Armenia rather than Cundari. I'd consider that a fairly trivial mention, as the article provides almost no information about Cundari. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 13:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Not sure why you didn't see the link I posted in my comment, e.g. [28] [29] [30]. Sionk ( talk) 20:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• These seem like somewhat trivial mentions, since they aren't really about the company itself (two are about BMW Canada's ad campaign). Not sure they establish notability, or give much (if any) information about the company. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 21:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now instead as although I found at the usual searches, News, Books, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing better convincing unless this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and clearly don't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Aradial (  | 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 company, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All links on the page are either from company itself or are news releases. My own searches turned up nothing about the company. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - corp article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in RS sources. A search turned up incidental mentions including IT News Africa but no singificiant independent coverage. Dialectric ( talk) 18:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and keep as no one ever suggested a serious delete (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Okay this was previously deleted per AFD-however the guy might be more notable now-but still I find this to have questionable notability, at best I would say a redirect for now. Wgolf ( talk) 18:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Withdrawn Wgolf ( talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per WP:ENT, I think his roles on The Unborn and Shameless (a main character on that show it appears) are sufficient to establish notability. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 19:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Split between weak keep or redirect to Shameless as 61 episodes so far is something but not entirely convincing of a separate article. Pinging past AfD commenters LibStar, Whpq, Ponyo and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment-Yeah I am starting to think weak keep might be better-I did have the csd for previously deleted but then I was thinking he might be notable enough to have a second shot around this. Wgolf ( talk) 05:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep now per meeting WP:GNG and pushing nicely at WP:ENT, and continue growth along with his career and coverage. I opined a delete 6 years ago based upon his career being so very short and his coverage generally lacking, but suggested that the topic might be returned in that situation changes. Now that it has, we can welcome this fellow into Wikipedia. Losd of WP:SIGCOV available now that did not exist six years ago. For instance, Chicago Tribune (01-08-09) offers a quite decent and lengthy article about this actor, and we also have fine ones in Chicago Daily Herald (01-08-11), Los Angeles Times (02-24-11), Chicago Daily Herald (07-19-12), Chicago Daily Herald (04-01-14), and many more. While in 2009 sources were scarce, time has corrected that lack. Enough sources speak about and offer details on his life, upbringing, and career, that WP:BIO is now a lock. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per excellent analysis above, passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Cavarrone 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage now to meet inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw-As I said earlier-I was iffy about putting this up or not-as it was previously deleted but since he seemed notable enough now...anyway I'm withdrawing! Wgolf ( talk) 19:54, 28 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. KTC ( talk) 14:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Basically open and shut for an article with a certainly unacceptable current version and my searches found nothing better than these links (hardly useful for a better article) and this has basically stayed the same since May 2006. Pinging tagger Mike Rosoft who also said "Marked as a stub - possible deletion candidate". SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• The article is an eternal stub with no references except for her website - 9 years with no improvement. She does have an entry on AllMusic, but it only lists a single album published at ACM Productions (which appears to be a two-man "film and video production company" - unless the Google search returns a different company of the same name), and a couple of appearances on compilation albums. I don't think she meets the inclusion guidelines, so I'm afraid it's a delete from me. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 18:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete same as above Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 18:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - clearly as nothing to show they pass notability criteria could be found on search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete Nabla ( talk) 01:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ney M. de Vasconcellos (  | 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 as my searches found nothing better than this and also this seems like someone else "M. de Vasconcellos" and this has simply not changed since starting in January 2009. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG in the absence of in-depth coverage. -- DAJF ( talk) 01:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete lack of good coverage Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 18:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Rowland (  | 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 is not inherited, no other significant claim of notability present. If this article wasn't several years old, I would have used CSD:A7. Versa geek 23:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete rather than actually redirect to his father' article as there's likely simply not much for a better article (I actually reviewed this when it started). SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. – Fredddie ™ 15:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ouija 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)

Doesn't meet WP:BAND by any metric I can see. Press coverage seems minimal and in passing. The band itself seems defunct. Nsteffel ( talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Exactly and thus there are also no obvious signs of improving. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable band Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - doesn't pass WP:BAND, and searches don't show it meeting the notability criteria of WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

GAU - Faculty of Engineering (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsure whether this can be rescued. New article concerning a college. Appears to be pure advertisement. Oscarthecat ( talk) 21:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as WP:TNT in any case and if a better article can be made, then it is taken of but the current version is simply not acceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per SwisterTwister. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 18:34, 26 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. KTC ( talk) 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Almost certainly non-notable, but does have a (somewhat flaky) HuffPost article, so bringing it here. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mentioned at The Guardian, I'm finding a number of foreign language sites that I cannot quickly evaluate. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete likely if there are no signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. insufficient notability; there have been too many articles of this sort for companies like this in the hP: I no longer regard it as a reliable source, as they seem to be willing to write PR. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not show anything to suggest they pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Doesn't appear notable. Preliminary searches has only come up with the site itself and the single source clumsily placed in the article. That source is local news and can't establish notability by itself. Nominating instead of CSD as there IS at least a single secondary source available. Jcmcc ( Talk) 18:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

And through WP:INDAFD: "Jeevika Film Festival" "Asia Livelihood Documentary Festival" "Centre for Civil Society" "Jeevika Campaign" Jeevika"

• Keep this relatively new stub by an inexperienced new user. Sorry nominator, but while the article is quite short and lacks proper sourcing, through my own deeper searches it appears that the festival HAS received enough coverage to meet WP:ORG. Needing editorial attention is more a reason to give it to a notable topic than it is to delete it for the lack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please understand @ MichaelQSchmidt:, I have never heard of Jeevika Film Festival. I would have never known to search "Asia Livelihood Documentary Festival", "Jeevika Campaign" etc. I nominated this In Good Faith. I don't know why you think I have any personal feelings on whether an article gets deleted or not. I just nominate when I see what very much appears to be a non-notable, unsourced, possibly made up subject. For an editor that isn't personally involved in Film (me), it very much passes the duck test for being a deletion-nomination-worthy article. Jcmcc ( Talk) 17:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Never heard of it myself... but then it even with it going on for some thirteen years, it does not get press in southern California. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, now that I am looking through the various "other names" I still don't see the reliable sources you mentioned. Could you possibly share the "deeper search" results (or sources that you found) for the sake of discussion? I realize it is probably an issue of WP:INDAFD. Jcmcc ( Talk) 18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Toward the festival itself, there is Merinews with an authored more-than-trivial article telling us its 10th event was two years ago. Same for Hindustani Times covering its 9th inception the year before. Merinews spoke toward the 9th in some detail as well. Supporting, it is mentioned in a more-than-trivial manner in the multiple reliable sources [31] [32] which speak toward various film which have won its awards. It's founding " Centre for Civil Society", itself gets enough press to meet WP:ORG... and the festival is their's. And too, under "Asia Livelihood Documentary Festival", it gets more-than-trivial coverage when spoken of in articles about the films which have won awards. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

And... what I have learned is the valuable power of using WP:INDAFD for difficult to Google-search Indian topics because it develops that Google News does not crawl nor index Indian newspaper articles properly. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep I've added a single source, which should help.I think it easily pass WP:GNG. Seems to be a number of varied sources for long running festival available to nipper editor, if he get's around it. It's well established. Scope creep 14:20, 29 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 20:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Delete: as purely promotional in nature. Quis separabit? 18:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep or at least merge to Kenwood Limited as it seems this is related. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep notable, nothing obviously promotional (what would it be promoting?) but parts of the article may have been copied from ingenious.org.uk - cited as a source but Internet Archive only has versions of the page after the addition to Wikipedia. Peter James ( talk) 12:17, 28 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. KTC ( talk) 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Article about a non-notable bit torrent search engine. Fails WP:WEBCRIT for lack of available reliable sources independent of the subject. Most sources merely mention the subject. - Mr X 15:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep it has a few mentions on independent websites, and this is enough to keep it. -- Frmorrison ( talk) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Since when is "a few mentions" an indication of notability?

• Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per SwisterTwister - Couldn't find anything either, Non notable search engine, Fails GNG .– Davey2010 ^Talk 20:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up anything to show the article passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Happy to revisit if preinternet sources found Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ken Macklin (  | 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:NAUTHOR. No better sources about the subject have been found since prior AfD and article creator says on the talk page they know of no better sources. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I declined speedy deletion of the article as a WP:CSD#G4 repost as the previous AfD was ages ago and the subject has done some additional work since then. However, all of the mentions seem to be minor, and insufficient to properly write a biography. So unless further secondary sources can be found, deletion is probably the best option (just not speedy deletion). — Kusma ( t· c) 13:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Yeah, as the main author of the article I'll confirm that there seems to have been very little written about him that would qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia, unfortunately. (I can find lots that's been written about his character Bubsy for example, but very little of it actually mentions Macklin, despite the credits specifying him as the character's creator...) I thought the relative prominence of some of the wikipedia articles about his work would qualify as some measure of notability, just to have a page to tie it all together, but if not then so be it. I just hope this will be an actual deletion and not the redirect someone tried to make, so people can at least continue to search for his name across articles instead of being redirected to an arbitrary one of them. -- Omgitsraven ( talk) 15:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Another example of a subject from the pre-Internet period where sourcing is primarily off-line. A GBooks search turns up a lot of references, few of which are available in more than snippet view. But this source [33], for example, gives a reasonably detailed account of one example of his work. This source [34] documents that Macklin was a Guest of Honor at a significant genre convention, indicating both stature in his field and typically indicating the existence of a program book containing a useful biography. He's almost certainly got work reviewed in comics print mags of the 1970s and 1980s, which are just not even minimally accessible online. ISFDB shows work included in two different World SF Con program books, another signal of stature in his field. There's too much evidence of notability do delete the article, even if it's not going to be east to access the sources needed to write a first-class article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 23:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep: If the character he created qualifies as notable, then so too does the creator. Article could definitely use some work, though. But start-class quality is not, standing alone grounds for deletion. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Notability is not inherited. Nominator is not arguing to delete it due to being start-class, but because of a lack of sourcing to show WP:GNG is met (Among other policies). -- ferret ( talk) 00:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment The problem is that there are no biographical sources available. The article was deleted 7 years ago because no one could find sources and no one can find sources on him now, not even the person who wrote the article. A redirect/merge to his principle work would be fine but GNG requires significant coverage of the person.

  Right now this article is no different than any one of a dozen 'producers' who have nothing but their name on credits and we delete those out of hand. Even one decent biographical source would be enough to keep in this case but we need that one. Jbh ^Talk 12:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• There is a huge difference between "no biographical sources available" and "no biographical sources readily found online". And there's an even bigger difference between an investor who buys a producer credit on a film, and an actual creative person who shares the notability of the work they create. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• If there were any sources even identified for this person I would say keep but we do not keep biographies around just in case a source pops up. See WP:NRV - sources must at least be known to exist. Do you know of any? This same problem existed in the previous AfD and the article was deleted because of it. Jbh ^Talk 23:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Okay, I've dug up a couple that might qualify: first, here is an excerpt from a book that discusses Macklin's experience being personally invited to a convention by the chair. It's just one section of a larger book about the convention, and while I can find other sites corroborating the book's existence I can't actually find a copy of the book myself, so I know it's a bit of a stretch, but I figured I'd at least mention it.. I've also found this interview with someone he worked with at LucasArts, that discusses Macklin's involvement in an early version of the project they worked on; would I be right that this would count as a secondary source (someone else discussing him) from a reliable publication (mixnmojo was already accepted as a source for his work on Thimbleweed Park)? -- Omgitsraven ( talk) 01:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The interview is a potential good source it depends on if the book was published or is just a Convention flyer. The other is really just a passing mention. I spent quite a bit of time looking for biographical material. There are indexes to a lot of old comics etc that credit him and these are the kinds of publications that would have interviews/commentary but I could find nothing.

For a bit I hoped that this [35] might be him but he is a sculptor from Alberta - who incidentally has a bit of press coverage. The only thing I could find about the Ken Macklin who is the subject of the article is [36] which shows he has gotten into the self-help woo business. Lots of people like his work and mention him but only in the 'this is by Macklin', 'Macklin did good stuff', 'will Macklin ever come back' (There is/was a Kickstarter that intended to have him do some art).

I really do not think there is anything out there. Considering how often his name is brought up any existing biographical information would be noted. The comics wikis and the like do not even have blog quality write-ups on him. An admin would need to look at the old article but right now the article is probably a {{ db-g4}} since nothing seems to have changed from the earlier AfD. Jbh ^Talk 14:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Because we all know that if it's not covered in easily spotted online sources, it can't possibly be a worthwhile subject. That's why one of the pillars of Wikipedia is "If we can't find it in a cursory Google search, it's probably not worth knowing". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom and last AFD. I see some arguments that Bubsy is notable, but that would be inheritance. The sources brought up in this AFD appear to be trivial mentions, such as the Google book that discusses a pilot for Nickelodeon that simply mentions him as a creator and does not discuss him at all. I don't believe taking part in conventions shows notability either, thousands of comic book artists and writers do so. Whether easy to find or not, multiple reliable third party sources must exist to show notability. We can't hold on to the article because there might be sources... someone has to know of them. -- ferret ( talk) 00:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect to Maniac_Mansion#Production_and_SCUMM, where he is mentioned by name. I read through the sources linked by the other editors above and none discussed the article subject in more than passing mention. There plainly aren't enough biographical sources to write more than a shoestring list of mentions. As for the current sourcing, there are lots of primary sources but no significant coverage about the artist himself, not even in the articles for which he is supposedly notable, so R to most notable mention on WP. czar 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, unfortunately. I really like his work and his style is instantly recognisable, but there simply does not appear to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources to build an encyclopedia article around. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment If it's going to be deleted then so be it, but I'd still strongly recommend against making it into a redirect; none of these individual articles would be a useful stand-in for his body of work, and redirecting to any of them just makes it harder for people to search for the actual references to his work that would still be on Wikipedia. It makes more sense for people to search for him and see a list of his projects in search results, than to search for him and only see Maniac Mansion which he was barely involved with. -- Omgitsraven ( talk) 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Maniac Mansion has the most direct mention of Macklin on WP. If he is better known for other work, I suggest adding sources to those articles that say as much. czar 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I would say that if anything he's more associated with Bubsy, and I'd always assumed he created the character but apparently that was Mike Berlyn. Shows how much I know. However, as far as I can tell his involvement with Maniac Mansion was apparently just painting the box art. It seems kind of weird to redirect it there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Rajesh R Jain (  | 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 reliable sources to indicate that the subject is generally notable or notable as a person. Searching for sources found only mentions. As a movie producer, subject has only one credit, his first. That he owns the film production company does not add notability. I was not able to find any confirmation at all of his involvement in textiles or construction so not notable as a business man. DocTree ( ʞlɐʇ· ʇuoɔ) WER 04:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  04:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  04:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I see no obvious improvement here unless anyone agrees to redirecting to that film but this has the vulnerability of being restarted again so.... SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Just brief mentions, many of them in press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Disputed CSD A7.

Non notable web property. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete A7 I can't spot a credible claim of significance. Adam9007 ( talk) 21:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• To start off with, speedy deletion is entirely inappropriate because the article contains two solid claims of significance: (1) that the YouTube channel has a very high number of subscribers, and (2) the article cites multiple reliable sources entirely about the topic. Keep due to reliable sources about the topic. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 21:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure if a high number of subscribers is in and of itself significant (for example, many people could subscribe to my channel because they like my content, but that doesn't mean I'm in any way significant or notable), and citations are not claims of significance. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's significant. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Reliable sources about the subject are claims of significance because of the implicit claim that the subject was notable enough to be written about, which incidentally is the essence of the notability guideline. And, if 2 million people subscribed to your YouTube channel, there would be a good chance you were notable. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Well, as info has been added, A7 obviously no longer applies. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Comment Antrocent makes the argument that a large number of Youtube subscribers makes the person notable. Indeed, it might. But the person is not the Youtube channel and the Youtube channel is not the person. The channel is, broadly, the business of the person. The two are linked, but are not indivisible, and notability needs to be verified for the topic of the article. The person does not inherit notability from the channel and the channel does not inherit it from the person.
• Weak delete, but not per A7: This article makes a plausible claim of significance; 1.8m YouTube subscribers + "known for". If the article cites even sub-reliable sources covering the subject, precedent is towards declining an A7 in such circumstances (the criterion was created for articles without a compelling reason to believe there are existing sources covering the topic). Nonetheless, searches only came up with tabloid, but not reliable coverage. Esquivalience ^t 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I think I should add that the extra info was added after the A7 and AfD nominations. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment As deletion discussions evolve the articles being discussed often evolve as well. Fiddle Faddle 06:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 01:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete David Condrey ^{log talk} 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The brothers and their films have enough coverage for GNG. Move and rewrite to be about them instead as the channel itself has not been the focus of the coverage. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep and suggest a move to Danny and Michael Philippou - I agree with Duffbeerforme. There's significant coverage of the brothers, e.g., [37], [38], [39]. Enough to meet WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 18:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Secret trilogy (  | 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 books by an author whose biography article was deleted following AFD in 2011 (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafe McGregor). Emeraude ( talk) 13:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: No evidence found that this series of books published via Lulu.com and Ulverscroft Large Print Books is notable. AllyD ( talk) 20:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Can find some books listed in Amazon, but the publisher (Linford large print books) is MIA -- can't find anything about it. There are some copies of large print books in the series in libraries, but no great numbers. No reviews. LaMona ( talk) 17:42, 27 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) — UY Scuti ^Talk 18:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comparison of BitTorrent sites (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Feature comparison list of BitTorrent websites that seems to consist entirely of Alexa ranks and claims sourced from the subject websites themselves. The list and the comparisons seem to be based entirely on original research. There are no reliable independent sources that establish this list as a cohesive subject. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. - Mr X 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Its provide encyclopedic reference for the reader, that is nearly completely sourced via primary sources, except for website ranking on Alexa. However, what party is going to write about the websites' features? It is a listing of which common features each site has. -- Frmorrison ( talk) 16:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  What is the source of the comparisons? For the list to be encyclopedic, it would surely need to be referenced to respected sources that are qualified to make such comparisons.- Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep (no change since last consensus) The article was deleted after its first nomination, then was modified extensively and was kept after a second nomination. I haven't seen anything that alters the last consensus reached save a small edit conflict. Sure, notability and the slew of byzantine guidelines that underlie it are a proxy for what articles people want in their encyclopedia, but let's at least try to pretend this isn't an arbitrary and capricious exercise hinging on who chooses to participate. -- 69.204.153.39 ( talk) 17:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Notability is supposed to be the threshold for inclusion. It's fine to disagree with that, and lobby to change it, but the reality is that a comparison of bit torrent lists and search engines is not a notable topic as required by WP:LISTN. It also means that comparisons in the article are original research, which is also not allowed.- Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ MrX: It's not the notability guidelines I take issue with here in particular. It's the rather cynical attempt to bypass consensus by holding repeated discussions in the hopes of getting different participants and thus, different results. The notability guidelines are merely the vehicle for that bad behavior. And not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I believe you may have misinterpreted the policy about list notability, which require only that the grouping the list represents be notable. Unless you're suggesting that any sort of feature comparison, such as those of Wikis, Forums, or CMS's constitute original research. But I don't think that's an argument you'd wish to make. -- 69.204.153.39 ( talk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep (no change since last consensus) (subject is in the top 100 notable sites on the net, and comparisons are common on Wikipedia) -- Tim ( talk) 03:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as pure original research. Renata ( talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Aside from the other keep rationales noted above, I find the first citation needed tag on the article page, near the top, after the sentence, "Operating a tracker should not be confused with hosting content", baffling. ...well, it's true: dogs should not be confused with cats, and, while I only play a veterinarian on TV, I am reasonably certain you don't need a cite tag for saying so.-- Froglich ( talk) 11:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No change since last consensus, notable page, it's a very visited site ( stats) and in my opinion is extremely useful. rayukk | talk 17:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Those seeking to keep failed to cite any policy-based arguments to support their position. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

List of countries and capitals with currency and language (  | 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 think WP:INDISCRIMINATE was written for articles like this, and I'm somewhat surprised that this article has been in existence for almost three years now without being challenged. The last thing we need is more arbitrary lists of countries (emphasis on arbitrary). Is this particular grouping useful? Quite possibly, but all the information is obviously already available here (in separate articles), as well as covered on hundreds of other websites. There is certainly no need for a stand-alone list. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I suppose if that's the consensus but I'm not entirely sure how useful this is to kept. SwisterTwister talk 01:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Prabzy2016 
talk 
07:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply

• Delete, although it pains me to hurt someone's chances at passing an exam. This article truly adds nothing to the encyclopedia. If I need to know the capital or the currency of any particular country, I can just go to the article on the country. I agree with the nominator -- there is no need for a stand-alone list. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Dont Delete We have multiple pages for leaders like Obama, Modi and others. Why cant be have such a comprehensive page for listing out all the capitals. I challenge you - If I ask you to list 150 nations capital cities, will you be opening wiki pages of 150 countries??? Doesnt your argument seem absurd?? There are lot of other fake pages to be deleted including fake IDs. Your argument seems like you want to earn some points from Wiki and you do not bother about the type of pages. ChennaiyinFC ( talk) 21:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• List of national capitals in alphabetical order, List of national capitals by latitude, List of national capitals by population, List of national capitals and largest cities by country, etc. Also, List of circulating currencies, List of currencies in Asia, List of currencies in Africa, List of currencies in Europe, List of currencies in South America… IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - this seems to be a copy of List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent, but with random information tacked on. So there's some WP:COPYWITHIN problems as well. But not notable, and indiscriminate list (why currency and language?). FuriouslySerene ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Biography of non-notable person. The article claims that he has won four Emmy awards but http://www.emmyonline.com/newsemmy does not mention his name anywhere that I can find; perhaps he was part of the crew for some stories that won Emmys but if so, his name is not mentioned. The sources are either primary sources, user-edited websites, or trivial mentions. Note that the article is pretty much a verbatim copy of his imdb bio. bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for the same reasons stated by bonadea contributions talk. Several of the references simply include copies of tweets by the subject in articles that are about something else. I read the source that is in Italian, and it is a routine mention (one sentence). The Italian source appears to be a multi-author blog (the contributors are unpaid). David.thompson.esq ( talk) 17:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep He is a 4 time emmy award winner and a famous TV reporter and Actor . Why cant the page be live ? Alwayssmileguys ( talk) 18:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

When did he win those Emmys and where is a reliable source (not IMDb or any user edited website) that confirms it? It's not very difficult to find that kind of confirmation, usually, but this time I've failed. As for "famous", that's a subjective statement - and again, genuinely famous people usually have sources that write about them. -- bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I simply see no obvious better improvement in that he has better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'm guessing those Emmy awards are regional Emmys - as I found this cite: here. While not the same weight as primetime or daytime Emmys, they probably hold the same weight as the Latin Grammys do to the Grammys. The article is very poorly written. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Disagree with you on that. Latin Grammys are a national award and have same procedure as regular ones. Regional Emmys are made up of 20 different awards that are not competed nationally. It's specifically not a national award, which makes it less notable. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 19:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The Emmys are regional Emmys, so they don't establish notability. The sources provided are trivial or non-reliable. Notability hasn't been established. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 18:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Black icon (musician) (  | 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 music act. Sources either don't mention the subject or are blogs. Blackguard 16:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete For the reasons stated by Blackguard. David.thompson.esq ( talk) 17:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lack of reliable secondary sources, or even cursory mentions [40] Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 17:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Pinging Wikicology and Jpbowen. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Sadly, no evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Akon was patient enough before someone with no WP:COI considered an article for him. Wikic¤l¤gy ^{t@lk to M£} 05:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - searches did not show anything that meets either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Unimproved page re-added by editor over otherwise unanimous deletion decision.

Delete (from nominator). All the reasons the page was deleted remain true. (Indeed, the reinstatement of the page by the single editor who opposed deletion is rather tendentious.) No new material appears in this "new" version. When asked directly what RS's are new (and when reminded that AfD is about the subject's status and not article quality), the editor refused to answer, saying only to bring it here again. (Also, rather tendentiously, IMO.) See article's talk page and the original AfD. Barcaboy2 ( talk) 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There is a little bit of new material here: the Telegraph India 2015 reference. Maybe that's enough to save this from a G4 speedy deletion. But like all the others, it briefly quotes the subject without being an in-depth story about the subject nor an in-depth look at the results of a study she conducted. So nothing of significance has changed since the previous time the article was nominated. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I wasn't involved in the original discussion, but there seems to be reasonable RS to make this notable. It's a bit of stub, but far more here than in many BLPs. Mattnad ( talk) 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Look more carefully at the sources. Most of them (especially the bigger names among them) were there in the previous AfD. They are not the in-depth coverage of the subject (or of one of her research studies) as required by WP:GNG, but rather they include quotes by the subject with a brief gloss of who she is to put the quotes in context. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Could you be more specific, Mattnad? Which RS meets which notability guideline? Although some RS's point in the right direction, they don't cross the threshold. That is, there are quotes in media, but none are about the subject herself (which PROF requires. There are some few awards, but none are at the national level (which PROF requires). Etc. Barcaboy2 ( talk) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Regardless of past votes, the current Franklin article is solid. She won awards such as here and here. There are numerous reliable references in the NY Times and Psychology Today (which lists Franklin as an expert) and NPR and Public Record. She has a solid research record here; this article here was cited by 206 other studies; she has been published here and here and many other places. References in Psychology Today again, in Frontline, also another Frontline, plus in the Los Angeles Times and the IB Times. There are more references in the article. Clearly, Franklin easily passes the general notability guideline.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 18:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note. Possibly there is some kind of academic or professional rivalry going on here in Wikipedia, with one academic, probably a psychologist, systematically going after and trying to delete articles and viewpoints of other psychologists. While I am not an admin skilled with sockpuppet investigations, there are disturbing patterns. For example, both Barcaboy2 and User:James Cantor have this tendency to AfD articles about other psychologists, and then vote 'Delete' in addition to nominating them, such as for Randi Ettner (Barcaboy2 nominated, voted Delete, and Cantor voted Delete as well), Charles Allen Moser (Barcaboy2 nominated and voted Delete), and David Oliver Cauldwell (Cantor nominated, voted Delete). But overall the evidence for me is that articles about qualified professional psychologists are getting deleted when there are excellent references, as in the case of Franklin; similarly, the Ettner article should not have been deleted either; there are numerous references for her. Evidence of an academic rivalry between Franklin and psychologist James Cantor can be found here and it makes sense for us to wonder whether this rivalry is going on here in Wikipedia.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 18:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: I requested at my talk page that NeilN or a different administrator restore the previous version of the article for comparison. Here it is: User:Flyer22 Reborn/sandbox this link; that's the stubbed version, though. I was remembering the non-stubbed version. During the previous WP:AfD, I think Barcaboy2 and/or Tomwsulcer, and maybe others, significantly reduced the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

NeilN also restored the larger version for comparison. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, sufficient coverage. I added another reference to a profile in a textbook (reprinted on her website). KateWishing ( talk) 05:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

KateWishing also reformatted some of the article for a better presentation. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 15:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Lots of the above seem to be Franklin's work, web pages, etc. rather than reliable, independent sources. Likewise, minor awards cited above, like this, do not weigh significantly. References like this seem to be professional contact information – much of the material on Franklin out in the wild seems to be of this nature. Finally, her "solid research record" appears to be about an h-index of 6, although the GS listing of her publications/citations clearly contains the work of other people having the same name. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC). reply
• Keep. I commented, but did not !vote, in the first AfD. I think this person passes the WP:PROF test fairly well by now, but the article itself could use more editing. Bearian ( talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt ( talk) 22:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Adequate indicia of notability, solid sourcing. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rewrite to remove some of the hyperbola. The notability is based on the publications, using the customary criterion for WP:PROF. Her most cited paper [41] has been referred to 206 times; others at 61, 52, 38, 30.... The controversy is not over this, but her criticism of Blanchard's theory of Hebephilia. However, with respect to the awards, the vaguely referred to "Distinguished Scientific Achievement (2012)" ? is from the California Psychological Association, and is therefore not a national level award [42], the vaguely referred to Guggenheim is a Fellowship to complete her dissertation,{ http://www.karenfranklin.com/kf/credentials/} and the award from the Horowitz Trust is one of the 4 they awarded in 2001 [43] does not seem to be a notable award. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - good sourcing. per WP:PROF.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:39, 28 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. KTC ( talk) 14:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

British Airways Flight 6234 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable aviation accident. Landing gear collapses happen all the time. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - completely non-notable. Not even for an accidents section.-- Petebutt ( talk) 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence that it is notable just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of lasting notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Article lacks any references, list of "awards" are awards received by members of this company, not by the company per se. Article requires evidence of notability as shown by multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources, not by information on gift certificates. KDS4444 ^Talk 14:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete The article fails WP:V as there are no sources cited. Markangle11 ( talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - It needs refs, but Soulpepper is one of Canada's most prominent theatre companies. A quick search of the CBC finds 200 articles, 400 in the Toronto Star. There is also a full article in the Canadian Encyclopedia. - SimonP ( talk) 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep only if this can be better improved. Pinging Voceditenore. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Snowy keep Oh goodness, no. I find it hard to believe that a theatre company of similar stature from the nominator's own country would have been nominated by him. Do a Gnews search for the term ""Soulpepper." You can leave off "theatre" and "company" as they're not WP:COMMONNAME nor even WP:OFFICIALNAME, according to Soulpepper's own website (this page should be renamed). Yes, it's an unreferenced article for this highly notable theatre but Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP and there is no reason on earth for us to be wasting time with this discussion. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

No indeed. No reason to waste our time if the article had been properly referenced in the first place according to terms that have been emphasized and laid out long ago. No need at all. Instead, we find ourselves here. KDS4444 ^Talk 21:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

See WP:MUST and WP:BEFORE. We find ourselves here because you brought us here, pointlessly, without a clue as to what Afd is actually for, apparently. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• This is a fairly obvious keep. There is plenty of coverage at a national level, and even back in 2001 this theatre company was generating media coverage internationally. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• And on the subject of Soulpepper per se not winning any awards, Googling "Soulpepper + award" shows that it just won an Ontario Premier's Award for Excellence in the Arts this week, and it just won major Canadian theatre award Dora Mavor Moore Awards within the past few months. So I really have to wonder if any WP:BEFORE work at all went into this nomination. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

(Let us be clear, however: the Dora awards are Toronto-based awards, and are not even Provincial in scope.) KDS4444 ^Talk 21:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, the Toronto theatre awards: Toronto is Canada's English theatre capital in much the same way that Broadway is for your country. Is that too local for you, too? Honestly, I'm done with this. If you had a shred of sense you'd withdraw this. But whatever. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

And the Tony Awards are New York City based and not strictly national or even statewide in scope, either, but that doesn't make them any less notable or encyclopedic. Bearcat ( talk) 22:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Definitely needs referencing improvement, but Soulpepper is one of the most notable theatre companies in Canada, full stop. Keep and flag for reference improvement. Bearcat ( talk) 22:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply