Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 October 8 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Economic regions of Canada

Economic regions of Canada (  | 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 "economic regions of Canada" are not a notable thing in their own right — they are, rather, an internal Statistics Canada mechanism used solely for aggregating employment statistics for various Canadian markets. And the only sourcing that exists for this list, further, is a Statistics Canada web page which doesn't even actually define what any of the regions are, but just lists them and then gives a general boilerplate "For census subdivisions: See: StatsCan website. For localities: See: StatsCan website." description under each and every last one of them — which means even the sourcing isn't actually helping anything or anyone. In effect, that just makes this a pointless list of things that will never actually have separate articles of their own — but Wikipedia does not exist as a venue for publishing lists of non-notable things. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This is just a Stats Canada classification that nobody else seems to use. There are scattered mentions of Canadian economic regions, but they're rather generic and have no connection to this list. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 13:12, 9 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. Courcelles ( talk) 22:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Lareal Watt

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

Individual notable for only one event, not passing WP:BLP1E. Initial contributor, Philmonte101, is definitely a good-faith editor and I would request that all input be positive and constructive. -- Non-Dropframe talk 21:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep My opinion is that the article should be kept. I think the subject is interesting and there are 3 references; I could really do more references to arrest archives. Is it even possible to keep the article? The research I did was honestly simple, since there are little resources out there. I feel like Wikipedia is a sum of research, and this is definitely the sum of my research on the knucklehead. Philmonte101 ( talk) 22:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)--Formatting to standard AfD !vote structure. -- Non-Dropframe talk 22:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete - I seriously considered adding {{ db-attack}} to the page and would endorse others if they do the same. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of criminals. Yes, we have notorious criminals and we have people who were notable in their own right before before committing crimes but the vast majority of criminals fail WP:N. When it comes to determining the notability of a criminal, the kinds of sources matter: Those which routinely report all crimes of a given type or all crimes in a given geographic location or all crimes which fit a certain profile are generally treated much the same way as "business directory listings" are - they don't carry much weight. There is also WP:ONEEVENT, which generally means criminals who have only received press coverage for a single crime or crime spree don't qualify for their own article, but the underlying crime or crime spree might if it met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 04:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete as well. The subject definitely fails WP:CRIME. Borderline WP:CSD#G10. Having this article makes me seriously uncomfortable. – Grondemar 04:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Priscilla Papers

Priscilla Papers (  | 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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded after a reference showing an in-passing mention was added. PROD reason still stands, hence: *Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The numerous citations in Google Books shows that the journal easily passes WP:NJournals #2. Also, the reference referred to above is more than simply an "in-passing mention", and probably indicates that it passes #1 as well. Worldcat shows holdings in 600 libraries. St Anselm ( talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
With regard to WP:NJOURNAL #1, an independent reliable source needs to reach that conclusion, or the evidence needs to be overwhelming. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The numerous citations in Google Books (as above) - if being heavily cited in the academic and scholarly literature is not enough to make a journal notable then what is! Do we have to have a 3rd party source which says "Priscilla Papers is a notable journal" somewhere. Nonsense! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note - use the "Scholar" option from the "Find sources" element above and you get lots of such citations etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As others said, it's easily found in Google Book searches, and I just did a Worldcat search on it and found it held in over 600 locations near me. Easily passes WP:NJournals #2 at least. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 08:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The library holdings don't say much (apart from the fact that WorldCat is quite unreliable): the journal is open access (delayed, but still), meaning that many libraries will list it as an "Internet resource" because it doesn't cost anything. As for the GBooks searches, did you really see anything substantial (as opposed to some hits)? -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 22:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jaban Ali Khan

Jaban Ali Khan (  | 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, run of the mill businessman. PRODed by Wgolf on 25 March 2014 as unsourced BLP, de-PRODed by IP editor after adding the text "Nawroj Ali Khan, his nephew. His son , Muhammad Ali Khan's youngest son" at the end (possibly intended as some kind of reference; subsequently removed). Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and ProQuest turned up nothing more substantive about this Jaban Ali Khan than wiki-mirrors and directory-type listings, so does not meet WP:BASIC. Worldbruce ( talk) 21:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 21:46, 7 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. Courcelles ( talk) 22:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Abul Hasan M Sadeq

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

WP:BLP of an academic, which makes a potentially valid claim of notability but fails to properly source it. The only reference anywhere in the entire article is not media coverage of him, but a PDF of a conference presentation by him — making it an invalid primary source right off the top, before you even take into account the fact that it while it verifies his existence it fails to actually confirm the information it's footnoting. There's also a lot of subjective and unencyclopedic language in here — the fact that his mother "would help all her neighbours", while lovely as it goes, has nothing to do with whether he belongs in an encyclopedia or not — which makes it remarkably unsurprising that the article was created by someone with "AUB" in their username (check again the name of the university the article subject is a faculty member at, and refer directly to WP:COI.) While he might be eligible to keep a Wikipedia article that was written and sourced properly, he doesn't get to keep this. Delete unless proper sourceability in reliable sources can be shown. Bearcat ( talk) 21:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Now, this article only serves as a CV. Further, in my evaluation, WP:ACADEMIC doesn't necessarily hold. Only criteria that may apply for him is 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. However, per note, the institute has to be major and significant. Asian University of Bangladesh only has minimal significance to warrant an article for its own, but not for its vice-chancellor(s). -- nafSadh did say 17:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nom and nafSadh sum it up well. A vice chancellor, but at an ordinary, commonplace university. AUB is in no way a major or significant institution of higher education and research, so he does not meet criterion 6 of the professor test. Furthermore, searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and JSTOR turn up only an occassional passing mention (e.g. "was in attendance"), and a handful of articles he has authored with a small handful of citations of them. There is little verifiable information available, and nothing important to say about the subject, so a stand alone article is not warranted. Worldbruce ( talk) 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Playtime Is Over (mixtape). Both this and the non disambiguated title will be fully protected. Whether to delete the underlying article is therefore meaningless. Courcelles ( talk) 22:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Wuchoo Know (Nicki Minaj song)

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

PROD was removed by creator. Non-notable song from an early Nicki Minaj mixtape. Holds no significance or notability above the other tracks from the tape. Note: The article was originally speedily deleted under a different name ( Wuchoo Know) three times, and once under its current name if that makes any difference. Azealia911 talk 20:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I absolutely agree about keeping a redirect. Makes sense. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 00:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with the redirect at Wuchoo Know. -- Dэя- Бøяg 03:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with your comment on articles not needing to be deleted before redirection, however it can't hurt, and may prevent restoration of the article by its creator (whom removed the AfD tag from the atticle 5 times). Azealia911 talk 06:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Madhuraa Bhattacharya

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

It isn't clear that she qualifies for A7 speedy deletion but I can't find anything of substance about her under either of her names as written in Roman letters, and nothing but this article and three pages from the same lyrics site under her name as written in Bengali. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSICIAN. All of the sources given are affiliated or are other Wikipedia articles. On top of that, the entire article is written from a fan's point of view. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - "written from a fan's point of view" is something that can be corrected and is no reason for deletion. However, failure to meet notability guidelines is. I found a few references such as these passing mentions [2], [3], & [4] so there is more than just mirror sites. I am not sure if there is a name issue as the article states she changed her name in 2013. I guess I will wait and see if someone has any better luck finding more in depth sources prior to casting a !vote.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unfortunately, despite several warnings and G11 speedy deletions, the same contributor keeps recreating the article, under variations of the title, with the same promotional wording. I see no option but to delete. Deb ( talk) 10:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 22:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel Huang

Daniel Huang (  | 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 individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 20:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I created the article on mophie a while ago but unfortunately I do not see enough for Huang to have his own article. I cannot locate anything in depth that would satisfy WP:GNG. The best article out there is the Forbes article, but it is about the company and only dedicates a small amount of wording to Huang. I also isolated searching for his name and the other companies mentioned and also came up with nothing in depth. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, withdrawn. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Galit Hasan-Rokem

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

Do not believe the subject of this unsourced BLP meets PROF or any other notability guideline. J04n( talk page) 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 19:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 19:25, 7 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 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Bridgewater Systems

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

just a catalog of their products DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Company meets WP:GNG and previously publicly traded before being acquired. Here are some references [5], [6], [7], [8]. There are a ton of brief mentions which can help fill out content in the article in order to make it more than just a list of projects. If the article is kept, I am more than willing to do the article cleanup. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, !votes are all neutral or keeps. ( non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 20:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kubrick Mons

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

There is just one reference and this one reference doesn't say that the geological feature is called Kubrick Mons. This article has to be deleted. Huritisho 18:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

My reason for deletion is that the source doesn't even say the geological feature is called kubrik mons. It would also violate the notability requirement Huritisho 18:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are adequate sources available for a stub. Seems intuitively clear that the feature is not going away and people will continue to want to know about it. The name is "informal" for now, perhaps, but that's OK — if it gets a different, more official name, we can always move the article. -- Trovatore ( talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The source doesn't even say it is called kubrik mons Huritisho 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
This one does. So do several others that you can find just by clicking the link that was automatically added by the {{ find sources}} template. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
There is also the possibility of moving it to Charon (moon)#Geology Huritisho 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
As I said, adequate sources exist for a stub, and the feature is intuitively notable. I'm sticking with keep. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm just trying to cancel this darn nomination I started. Huritisho 19:41, 7 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 as this seems acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Peggy Speas

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines for academics. I did not find any notable fellowships, any notable posts at a university or at a journal, or any major impactful work that has met the guidelines. However, I could be wrong! (And I always hope I am!) Missvain ( talk) 18:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I think she meets many of the notability guidelines. All this information is found on the page. 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. - Her work on Navajo has definitely made a significant impact, her founding of the Navajo Language Academy reflects this. 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. - Her coauthored textbook on Navajo is the official Navajo textbook of the state of Arizona. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. - Her non academic work with the Navajo Language Academy attests to this. Hauserivy ( talk) 20:00, 7 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure). " Pepper" @ 16:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Bernie jamon: ang huling halakhak

Bernie jamon: ang huling halakhak (  | 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 evidence of notability at all, no Google results for the title combined with "Bernie Jamon" except this page and one other WP page that logs speedy deletion candidates. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Alts:
filmmaker:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
title:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. No WP:RS, possible hoax.-- RioHondo ( talk) 23:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This is a pretty blatant hoax. Initially I was going to just say that this was likely a hoax given that the lead actor is fairly well known and is pretty regularly covered in English language websites (or English searchable websites) and there's no mention of this film anywhere. However a look at the editor's talk page shows that he tried to create a similar article there for a film released in 2025 that's based on a book by the same name as this film. Given that there are no sources out there and it's highly unlikely that there would be no coverage in English for one of Cruz's new roles plus we have content on the user's talk page that gives off the strong impression that this is a hoax, I have to assume that the quacking here means that this is a WP:DUCK. I do think that there is someone by the name of Bernie Jamon, but I think that this is more a young adult or child creating an article for their dream film they want to make one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 8 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. Courcelles ( talk) 22:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Balkin

Jeremy Balkin (  | 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 and Promotional -- see the COIN Noticeboard [12]. his book is minor: only 40 copies in libraries, which is utterly trivial for popular works on finance. There is no other notability. We don't include articles even for actual unelected candidates for office--certainly not for those who just considered running. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I found some links at News, browser and Highbeam but there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete He seems marginally notable. Marginally. His wealthy father was a director at McKinsey, won the Order of Australia, and doesn't have an article. The son is less notable; he's been loosely associated with important people and events, but hasn't done anything notable himself. His career high point seems to have been one TEDx talk. John Nagle ( talk) 17:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of vaudeville performers: L–Z#M.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Machinson Sisters

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

I'm not entirely convinced if they existed and if they actually existed, they were not well known and there are no good sources as the best I found was this. Inviting TheGGoose and Calamondin12 and also notifying author Infrogmation. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 23:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:37, 7 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. Courcelles ( talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Slammed (play)

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

Article is essentially a very long plot summary without any references or suggestions of significance/notability. Nsteffel ( talk) 21:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Charlotte Stokely

Charlotte Stokely (  | 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 pirnbio and gng. Nominations don't count Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The relevant standard in PORNBIO is "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which means that there needs to be more than one featured appearance (in the film in question here, Ms. Stokely starred as the title character "Eve", and Ms. Stokely was one of the contestants on the reality show in question here) and that the type of media needs to be notable (which basically means that it needs to have its own Wikipedia article) and mainstream (of which both Cinemax and Playboy TV are considered, IMO, to be mainstream media).
Subjects of Wikipedia articles can obviously be evaluated under many different inclusion guidelines, and the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model in the past. Therefore, she can be evaluated under the NMODEL standard, which (in this case) is very similar to the relevant PORNBIO standard anyways. Guy1890 ( talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There do not appear to be any significant "unverifiable self-sourced claims" in the article under question here at this late date. The fact that the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model for American Apparel in the past is well-established at this point. Guy1890 ( talk) 04:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • and that does not make her notable unless someone has written about her modelling for them in RS. Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business ia self-sourced and unverified -- more accurately, her two entirely different and irreconcilable accounts, both referenced in the article. Her version of her hiring by American Apparel falls into the same category. Right now, all the biographical info in the article is as likely to be kayfabe, if not fabrication, as it is to be accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 15:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
"And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business"...is, in a word, unimportant. It's also neither unusual nor notable at all. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies that prohibit the use of self-sourced information in Wikipedia articles, especially for completely non-controversial or non-notable information.
Again, that "Stokely has modeled for several American Apparel advertisements" is an established fact, beyond any reasonable doubt. Guy1890 ( talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • WP:BLP requires the use of high-quality, reliable sources. An article subject who tells thoroughly incompatible, unverifiable stories about her own professional career simply isn't a reliable source. The fact that's she's appeared in a few advertisements may be an established fact, but it's far, far below the standard required to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:37, 7 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. Courcelles ( talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Rahul "RJ" Jain

Rahul "RJ" 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)

Fails WP:GNG - several of the sources appear to be Press releases or PR-type sources, or not discussing him. Mdann52 ( talk) 20:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:36, 7 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. Courcelles ( talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Giorgia Marin

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Please note: es:Giorgia Marin, id:Giorgia Marin, it:Giorgia Marin (her home country) and nl:Giorgia Marin. ErikvanB ( talk) 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:33, 7 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. Courcelles ( talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Gulf Coast Community Foundation

Gulf Coast Community Foundation (  | 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 this could've been tagged as G11 but given its age (August 2007) and almost all edits apparently being the group themselves, I wanted comments. This is an excellent and I found results here, here, here and here (this last one, see some of the first results saying it is Florida's largest community foundation with about $1 million in assets but I'm not sure if this can be improved; I even improved fellow Florida-based Amigos For Kids and that looked better). SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:33, 7 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. Any other articles than the originally nominated one must be nominated seperately Courcelles ( talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ovation Global DMC

Ovation Global DMC (  | 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 considered speedying this especially considering what it looked like before here but given its age and amount of low edits, I wanted comments; the best my searches found was this, this, this and this. NOTE: I' also nominating another European company Lestra for which I'm not sure is fully notable, the French Wiki has some more info but not convincingly much and the best my searches was this and this (I searched Newspapers Archive and found nothing so the only chance of good coverage is archived French media). Notifying Lestra past editors (July 2009) Theroadislong and Falcon8765. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
P.S. @ SwisterTwister: maybe it would be better to have a separate AFD for Lestra; since it is an unrelated company and has some coverage it would be cleaner to be able to separate the votes. Vrac ( talk) 03:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
DGG Simply for curiosity though, what would you thoughts of Lestra be? I would also appreciate if you'd comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey W. Schroeder, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Dial and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Nazemson which have gotten low voting attention. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jean Hilliard

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

WP:BLP1E of an accident survivor, which demonstrates no sustained notability outside the context of that accident itself. If her incident had documentably led to a major advance in medical science, then there might be a case to be made that she warrants an article for it — but if the sum total of its enduring impact is that she awoke from a coma 49 days later, the end, then that's just not enough to warrant permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We look for continuing coverage two of the reliable sources posted are from 2015 showing the subject has been covered for 3 decades. Also sources describe the case as a miracle. The uniqueness of the case lends itself to notability. Valoem talk contrib 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"Miracle" is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia — it's an inherently unverifiable and non-neutral assertion. And the fact that one or two human interest stories might look back on something that happened 35 years ago does not demonstrate that the subject has been covered in a sustained way "for three decades", if you can't find any sources that are dated anywhere between 1981 and 2015. Bearcat ( talk) 00:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The subject here is clearly verifiable by reliable sources. Here is a book source from 2002 [14] and another medical source from 1983 [15]. Valoem talk contrib 00:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:33, 7 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. Courcelles ( talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Erik Christensen (snowboarder)

Erik Christensen (snowboarder) (  | 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 simply found nothing to suggest better improvement with these links being my best search results and this article has existed since December 2008 and started by a "Etren" (somewhat suspect this is the subject himself). Notifying past taggers Zanimum and Dawn Bard. NOTE: I'm also nominating another sports bio Phil Shao who although seemed to have gotten a fair amount of coverage locally especially for the memorial park (see my best results here, here, here and here), I'm not sure if there's enough for a separate article and at best should be briefly mentioned at the Redwood City, California article. This article has existed since May 2006 and has hardly changed since then. Notifying author Nocarsgo and past editor Jason Quinn. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, in 2008 I tagged it with the {{notability}} tag, so yeah, even then I agreed with deletion. Amazed that it lasted so long. -- Zanimum ( talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
My edits in this only involved two cleanup edits to the Phil Shao article. I have no idea why I was singled out from among the other editors to that page. I have no personal interest in either article. I'm not sure these two deletions should be bundled however. Jason Quinn ( talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 17:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:30, 7 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 Fatally flawed. This AFD was a mistake from the start, nominating two subjects with no apparent connection at all. Reboot this as two AFD's if desired, but this one is so flawed from the start that it cannot reach a consensus to do anything. Courcelles ( talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Bethan Nia

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

My multiple searches (Books, News, browser, highbeam, BBC, WalesOnline, South Wales Evening Post, Daily Post, South Wales, Argus, ITV and The Guardian) found nothing outstandingly good to suggest better improvement with this, this and this being my best results so there's simply no improvement or move target for this article existing since February 2009. Inviting recent editor TheGGoose. NOTE: I'm also nominating another obviously non-notable music article The Kings of Spain as my searches simply found nothing better than the listed coverage and what's more is that The Kings of Spain's website no longer exists therefore suggesting the band no longer exists themselves. This band's article has existed since August 2006 and was most likely started a band member or a fan. Notifying author Crummy. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Question: @ SwisterTwister: One is a soloist, Bethan Nia, the other is a band, The Kings of Spain. Why are they WP:BUNDLEed? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:24, 7 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. Courcelles ( talk) 22:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Wajih Ull Hussnain Nizami

Wajih Ull Hussnain Nizami (  | 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:MUSICBIO. Bharatiya29 ( talk) 17:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sebastian Brown

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

WP:BLP, resting entirely on "local interest" news coverage with no evidence of wider national or international media attention, of a musician notable only as a local busker. This is not a claim that satisfies WP:NMUSIC in and of itself, but there's nothing else here (such as having released albums, etc.) that does so either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a more substantive claim of notability and a wider array of sourcing, not limited to a single media market, can be provided. Bearcat ( talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I think it's somewhat inaccurate to say the sources were limited to a single market. Yes, it is true the first five articles were broadcast locally, but the two most recent received national attention: Sebastian Brown was featured on the cover -- not a local subsection, but the national cover -- of the Toronto Star, which is the most widely circulated newspaper in Canada; and the CTV story aired twice on CTV National News, again, a nationally-televised broadcast, not a local edition. He also appeared on television in Taiwan, on a report by the CNA, which is that country's state broadcaster. To reiterate, this article has multiple reliable and independent sources, is the main focus of the articles published by those sources, and indeed has been the subject of wider national and international attention. this certainly satisfies WP:MUS number 1, and also number 7 (Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability): a Google search of "Ragtime Toronto" or "Honky-Tonk Toronto" yields several articles on this performer in the first two pages. Keep. Nate diddly ( talk) 18:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

NMUSIC #7, for the record, does not mean that every individual combination of "City" + "Musical genre" that you could possibly come up with creates an automatic inclusion freebie for one musician; rather, the particular City + Musical genre combination itself has to also be a notable, encyclopedic thing in its own right. For #7 to have any bearing on whether Sebastian Brown qualifies for an article or not, we would have to be able to write an article about "the Toronto ragtime scene" as an identifiable phenomenon of international interest — the criterion does not mean that every individual musical genre that exists at all automatically entitles the most locally prominent Toronto musician in that genre to a Wikipedia article, if that genre's Toronto-based "scene" isn't a thing that people outside of Toronto have also heard of in a substantive way. If "Toronto ragtime" were a thing that was getting international attention in international music media, then #7 would come into play — but #7 does not mean that you can just snap any city and any musical genre into a "most prominent of the local scene of a city" snowclone to create an automatic inclusion right for one local musician in every musical genre that exists in the city. Bearcat ( talk) 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, but I still don't see how the article fails to satisfy #1, for the reasons I listed above. Nate diddly ( talk) 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Very convincing argument by Nate Diddly, it seems that the article already satisfies the criteria outlined by WP:NMUSIC in addition to the new additional criteria described by Bearcat. Keep. Erhik ( talk) 03:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

WP:NMUSIC exists for a reason. Why are we inventing additional requirements for notability? Where are these new requirements coming from? Please refer to Wikipedia:List of policies, or cite some precedent. Nate diddly ( talk) 19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
At this moment, the only one I can think fits best is music notability guidelines as the current sourcing does not set him apart from any ordinary musicians and will likely even need better coverage local notability much less all around notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

He was featured on the cover of the Metro -- the most widely circulated paper in the entire country -- and was featured on the cover of the Star -- the second most widely-circulated paper in the country. Again, not a page-17 footnote, but a full-on feature on the front cover of the two-largest newspapers in the country. And he was featured on CTV National News -- the most widely broadcast evening news program in the country -- and on the State Broadcaster of Taiwan. These clearly satisfy the notability guidelines, in addition to the new guidelines we've invented specifically for this one article, all of the information is well-sourced and detailed, the sources are professional, independent, and consistent. I really don't understand what more we're asking for. Keep, again. Nate diddly ( talk) 18:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please note that while you're allowed to comment in an AFD discussion as many times as you like, you're not allowed to make more than one bolded keep or delete "vote". Accordingly, that part of your comment here has been struck out.
As for the newspapers, Metro consists of several distinct local editions which do not share most of their content across markets; he may have made the cover of the Toronto edition, but he certainly did not make the cover of every edition. And the Toronto Star attains its circulation figures entirely by virtue of being the dominant newspaper in the country's largest metropolitan area — it does not have any significantly-sized readership outside of the GTA. And newscasts, even national ones, routinely carry human interest "here's somebody you've never heard of before who's doing something kind of cool" pieces about people who don't get encyclopedia articles just because that newscast carried that piece, especially when they can just borrow a piece already created by one of their affiliate stations instead of having to commit their own resources to producing a separate one. And as for the coverage in Taiwan, you keep asserting that but you haven't shown any verifiable proof that it's true — people routinely try to get their pet articles into Wikipedia by claiming that coverage exists which actually doesn't pan out when somebody actually tries to find it, so it's not enough to just say that it exists if you don't show it.
Ultimately, "what more we're looking for" is evidence that he's done something, such as having released albums or songs that are actually getting radio play, that would make him somebody that any significant number of Wikipedia readers are likely to have already heard of, in a significant, sustained and "will actually remember his name twenty minutes later, because they've already heard it more than just once" sort of way. If a person could get an article on here just because their existence was verifiable in two or three distinct sources, we'd have to start keeping articles about heads of local PTAs and neighbourhood watch committees and coordinators of church bake sale committees — hell, we'd have to keep an article about me if that were all it took. Coverage can't just exist; it has to verify that they've done specific things that would make them a topic one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Bearcat ( talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
2<10. Please direct me to ten distinct professional sources about the same head of a church bake sale committee. Nate diddly ( talk) 04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Any city that has even one local media outlet will always have at least a couple of dozen, likely far more, people who are active enough in the local community to get their names into media coverage on that local outlet anywhere from two to fifty times a year. (Just as an example, there's no such thing as a city councillor, in any city, who doesn't get media coverage locally, yet we explicitly deprecate city councillors as not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia except for a very rarefied tier of special cases — because even though all city councillors could always pass GNG on local coverage, the substance of that coverage almost always fails to demonstrate any particular reason why they would warrant the attention of an encyclopedia with an international audience.) And the more local media outlets there are, the more likely it is that both the number of locally active people who are getting their names into the local media on a moderately regular basis and the number of media hits they're getting are going to shoot up even further. But that still doesn't necessarily make them all suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia just because that coverage exists, if it's not covering them in a context that's of any substantive non-local interest (such as a musician having actually recorded albums that have actually garnered national or international release.) Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Image
This is a screenshot of one of the CNA articles, but I can't find the originals because I don't speak Chinese. Nate diddly ( talk) 04:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Sebastian Brown is well-known in downtown Toronto. I work in the area and talk with a lot of people there, most are aware of him. Of course, anyone could make such a claim without evidence, in which case we should say, "Who cares?" But the extent of the media coverage speaks to the subject's notability. Erhik ( talk) 21:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Count of Paço de Arcos

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

Unsourced stub about a Portuguese title of nobility. I was unable to find public sources to verify the information in this article. Additionally I have concerns that it may fail the notability guidelines. Mww113 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I wish to side on keeping the article on the counts of Paço de Arcos. First, the article's references state the source of the content (including page number). Owing to the subject matter they are in Portuguese, as would be expected, including the [ this] from which this general article was based. Furthermore, in terms of notability the Counts of Paço de Arcos have appeared referenced in other online resources, this general article only uses the "Count" variant of the Portuguese. Regardless, a search on the subject matter will discover other references to "Conde de Paço de Arcos" or "Conde de Paço d'Arcos", including examples of genealogical records, thesis and online research. As much as they may be skewed to the first count, the countship is discussed, noting the importance in the diplomatic, military and economic spectrum in the formative efforts in Brazil. I can also cite that there are online references to Henrique Belford Corrêa da Silva, 2nd Count, indicating the counts importance as well. I hope that this will justify the Countship of Paço dos Arcos/d'Arcos. I suggest that this content be considered a "stub", but that there are important reasons for keeping it. ruben jc ZEORYMER ( talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep from what User:Zeorymer says, this is clearly not a hoax, but a genuine hereditary title of nobility. We have articles on every such British title; and I see no reason for not having them for other countries. The only exception for British titles is where the first holder was also the last, when we redirect to his bio-article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:07, 7 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. Unopposed nomination. Can be restored if more relevant sources are found.  Sandstein  19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sir Philip Grey Egerton, 11th Baronet

Sir Philip Grey Egerton, 11th Baronet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see any reason for notability. Didn't receive the baronetcy himself (for those who may be in doubt, a baronet is not a peer, doesn't sit in the House of Lords, and therefore does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN). Or indeed any other honours. A mid-ranking military officer. And a Deputy Lieutenant doesn't qualify either - it's just an honorary position. Just a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:07, 7 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: Withdrawn by nominator with no remaining votes to delete or merge. Mww113 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel Torrance

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

This article is about a character in The Shining. The article is completely unsourced, full of obvious original research and in my opinion it does not contain any verifiable information that The Shining (novel) does not adequately cover. Additionally, the article is poorly written with numerous typographical and grammatical errors. I recommend its deletion per WP:CITE, WP:STYLE, and WP:OR. Mww113 (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I no longer wish to propose the article's deletion, however I think it may be a good idea to leave this open for a while to see if there is consensus for a merge or not. However, if someone believes the discussion ought to close, we can move the merger proposal to the article's talk page. Mww113 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
At this time I would like to withdraw the nomination as there no longer seems to be cause to merge. Mww113 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a notable fictional character; I have added some commentary about Danny Torrance based on his central appearance in Doctor Sleep. There also appears to be commentary about Danny in The Shining (both the book and film). I also rewrote the lead section to give the character's fictional appearances more real-world perspective, such as who played him onscreen. Also support moving to Danny Torrance as the common name for the character. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep With the update and assertion that the character is notable in multiple books, I'm satisfied that there is no longer cause to delete the article. Major props to Erik for a major overhaul that saved this article. I will be withdrawing this nomination. Mww113 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and merge per above. I think I'd need to see sources that do some substantial character analysis before I would feel the character is notable enough, but I'm open to seeing what else may arise during this discussion as well. DonIago ( talk) 16:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Keep - I think the sources that have been provided satisfy my concerns. It may still be worth having a separate discussion regarding merging the article, though Erik raises valid points about how that could best be handled. Very good work on bulking up the article. DonIago ( talk) 13:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Mww113, Doniago, I added more content as seen here. When it comes to fictional topics, there will naturally be redundancy. An article about a work of fiction and an article about a fictional character will share content, but the focus will differ. I would agree that if a character appears in more than one work, it increases the likelihood of coverage of the character across multiple works. To have an article about a fictional character that appears in only one work, there would have to be a lot of coverage very specific to that character. If the character appears in multiple works, then a stand-alone article can be appropriate to consolidate all the significant coverage in a place that stands above any one article covering each work. I would also say in this case, Stephen King was apparently propelled to write Doctor Sleep out of others' specific interest in Danny's fate. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    In addition, merging complicates where to put comparative content. Coverage about Danny beyond the original novel would not quite belong at the novel's article as it would in his own article. I think it is detrimental to balkanize the content. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 17:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Since my last comment, I've expanded the article by over 40%. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 19:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I've removed my merge !vote: I don't think it's a problem to keep the article now that it discusses the character in a broader context and asserts notability. -- Slashme ( talk) 07:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Amy Lockhart

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

Stub on a Canadian artist. Lacks significant sources, both in the article and searches. I suspect it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. New Media Theorist ( talk) 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now but definitely draft and userfy as "Amy Lockhart filmmaker" found links here and there at Books (with most of 3), browser and the highbeam so this a case of top soon and we wait for better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:06, 7 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Dimitri Philippou

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

Only famous for a legal battle with Virgin, surely a case of BLP1E? Gbawden ( talk) 06:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

He has also been running a company that is a group which starting to become a competitor for the virgin group, doesn't that warranty a Wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phathu K ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Corinne McFadden

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

There's simply not much to suggest better improvement and although my searches found links for the theatre reviews here, here, here and here and I doubt that the fact they were reviewed suggests she is independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep The reviews do provide appropriate coverage to establish notability, but the material listed above and available elsewhere should be added and integrated into the article. Alansohn ( talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see nothing at this time to establish notability. She has been in the cast of 3 productions that I find, but I find very little which actually reviews her participation. A 2013 review of a Wicked revival said her work was "excellent at preserving" the musical and a 2015 review praised her work and the "beautifully complex choreography". But those are the only two sentences I find that actually go toward "her" notability. No biographical information, interviews, personal data, etc. that would lend to a stand alone article. Clearly she has helped Wicked maintain notability and it may be that she deserves at least a mention in that article. SusunW ( talk) 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Nathan Hofheins

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

Questionable notable and the best links I found were this, this and this. Pinging users GermanJoe and Johnpacklambert. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article just needs sourcing. Sources are available. Article, in fact, is already tagged for sourcing, which raises the question of whether it is appropriate to bring articles to AFD when they seem fairly clearly to simply need sourcing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sourcing is not the only issue here. The subject did not compose any of the music in the films listed in the article -- he composed the music for the trailers. Similarly with the list of television programs -- the subject did not compose the music, he orchestrated the work of others. As for the ESPN themes, it is difficult to see how those brief instrumental themes confer any notability on the composer (and I note that the linked articles don't refer to the theme music at all, let alone discuss the input from any one composer). In all, I see a man who is having a successful music-related career, but not one that is worthy of notice by an encyclopedia. Going back to the question of sourcing, I see that much of the article's current state was added by User:Nathanhofheins. I presume that this is the same person as the subject of the article (and, if not, my apologies to the user). It is reasonable for us to note that, if the subject himself is unable to find sources for his statements, the rest of us have little hope of doing any better. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:05, 7 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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Anthony J. Motley

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

Questionable notable and easily A7 with its current state and the best my searches was this, this and this. This has existed with basically no significant improvement since starting February 2009. Pinging past users Nikkimaria and Ground Zero. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve; article needs a thorough re-write, and sourcing. However, it is not a good candidate for deletion, The Rev. popped right up on google. Involved in what appear to be a series of scandals involving misappropriation of grants and donations. [18] , misuse of public funds [19] convicted [20] and given probation. He was a D.C. activist of some note, and a Marion Barry cronie. Certainly notable enough to keep. WaPo has lots of stories here: [21] on his good works and leadership, as well as on his financial skulduggery. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- From what I see in the article, I would have thought he was NN, but it sounds as if he is notorious. Is that sufficient to keep? No vote Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
It is, his positive accomplishments can be on the page, along with his criminal activity. I have been involved with a somewhat similar situation at Matthew C. Whitaker, popular professor, real accomplishment, but most coverage is about his plagiarism, which has caused page-blanking and whitewashing, similar to the history of this page. The solution is not deletion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve to give a full and balanced summary of the range of views available. The sources E.M. Gregory points to above are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The Washington City Paper pieces are well larded with speculation, innuendo, and sensationalism, and would have to be used carefully, but the Washington Post pieces are better, and several are substantial, such as [22], [23] and [24], and [25]. Worldbruce ( talk) 00:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Penelope Margaret Mackworth-Praed

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

SPA-created article about a probably non-notable Swiss-English artist. Ref #1-2 are common gallery infos (of the same gallery), ref #3 is mostly about her husband and covers the artist only in 2-3 passing mentions. Ref #4 doesn't point to any direct information about her. A Google search found no in-depth coverage. GermanJoe ( talk) 00:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply

[26] is a report about one of her exhibitions, but seems to be written by a connected author as part of university news. GermanJoe ( talk) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems to lack basic coverage. Even the cited "Two Artists of Exceptional Talent" hardly mentions her. I found little more than was cited already in her article. The Visarte Ticino gallery (in FN4) link was dead and defaulted to their main page, but there were other mentions of her on other pages of their website, for example here on page 24. But fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Three of the eight hits in Google books were "Who's Who" bios of her husband, Paul Glass. One was a gallery catalog of her work from Galleria SPSAS. One was the exhibition catalog of the show "Acqua, terra, cielo, fuoco" running 16 September - 1 October 2000, which featured four artists. A third catalog was a gallery catalog of a 2 March - 5 April 2012 show. Textilforum (2001) listed her once in a sentence with several other artists and one Myths and Counter-myths of America: New World Allegories in 20th Century Italian Literature and Film did not mention her at all. -- Bejnar ( talk) 22:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

John Caledon Grey Egerton

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

Can't see any reason for notability. Didn't receive the baronetcy himself (for those who may be in doubt, a baronet is not a peer, doesn't sit in the House of Lords, and therefore does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN). Or indeed any other honours. A junior military officer. Just a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep his war record can certainly be sourced to newspapers of the era. He almost certainly has an obit for the came reason someone has given him a Wikipedia page: he inherited a baronetcy. Also, he inherited a baronetcy, ergo, reliable sources on him exist. The lives of baronets get recorded. At the very least, there will be news reports of his birth, marriages, war service, coming into the title, and death. Tagged for sourcing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Being a captain and inheriting a baronetcy have never been considered good reasons to give someone an article. You will notice that only first baronets usually get articles unless they personally did something significant. He didn't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No sources that would establish notability are cited here or in the article. "They are out there" is a weak argument, see WP:BURDEN, and nobody seems to want to argue inherent notability just because of the title.  Sandstein  19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article basically only covers 2 pieces of information about this person: that he was a soldier who fought in 2 wars and that he was married twice. The fact that he "received" a "baronet" is not even mentioned in the article, I had to learn that from this AfD. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 07:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unopposed nomination.  Sandstein  19:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

City Water International

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

Lacks available reliable sources for establishing the notability of this company per WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:37, 7 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. The one "keep" opinion is unpersuasive, as all cited sources are genealogical - handbooks of peerages and such.  Sandstein  19:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

George Henry Grey

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

I can see no notability whatsoever here. No honours. Not senior enough for any inherent notability. Why is he notable? Looks like a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 14:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Black Lives Matter as I'm boldly seeing this is what she's best known for so it's unlikely any further time is needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Alicia Garza

Alicia Garza (  | 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 third-party coverage outside of Black Lives Matter, so merge with that page. JudgeJason ( talk) 14:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:03, 9 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 Merge and redirect as this seems best for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Opal Tometi

Opal Tometi (  | 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 third-party coverage outside of Black Lives Matter, so merge with that page.-- JudgeJason ( talk) 14:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Neither of those invitations is critical attention and she's an activist, not an artist anyways.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kingsbridge Rugby Football Club

Kingsbridge Rugby Football Club (  | 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 refs, and other issues. 333 -blue 13:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:05, 9 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. AfD nominator has withdrawn their nomination. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Upper Tamakoshi

Upper Tamakoshi (  | 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:ORGDEPTH JMHamo ( talk) 13:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The rescue is fairly complete now. Brianhe ( talk) 03:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discounting the nominator's statement, which makes no sense, and the two redirect opinions that offer no arguments, we have clear consensus to keep.  Sandstein  18:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The Squire of The Canterbury Tales

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

It is totally a story. 333 -blue 13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: Moved to The Squire (Canterbury Tales). R F,2015-10-07Z14:12.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Almost infinite academic sources on the topic. Covers different issues to the Squire's Tale article. Many thanks to Rich Farmbrough for heavily improving the article. Brustopher ( talk) 13:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Prune then merge to The Squire's Tale, as a section on the Squire (who tells the tale). This is ultimately a FORK of that. Canterbury Tales is a very important literary work, but I do not think we ought to have more than one article on each tale. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The problem with doing that is the interplay between the tales, the pilgrims and the characters in the tale. For example in The Reeve's Tale the character and cuckolding of the story Miller is certainly interpreted as a slight by the pilgrim Miller. And in the instant case, as I have just added, one queer theory interpretation of the General Prologue draws The Pardoner into the discussion about the Squire, as a foil. The Squire is also important for understanding The Knight - who is still wearing the clothes he was wearing when he returned from the war. How, one might ask, did the Squire manage to maintain his immaculate image?
    That's even without the obvious questions of glossing the description from the General Prologue which the original editor attempted - take for example the last line And carf biforn his fader at the table. despite six centuries the language is understandable, but we need to explain that the custom was for the senior squire to carve the meat in front of the knight (twentieth century interpretation of the line might read this as an attempt at usurpation) and therefore this reflect on the Squire's success in his chivalric endeavours.
    All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 01:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Keep, essentially per Brustopher, above. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 11:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Brustopher's analysis. To argue that there isn't enough critical commentary on Chaucer to support an article on one of his significant characters is utter barking madness. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 15:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Crowd economy

Crowd economy (  | 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 very short article about a company, nominate for discussion because not CSD. 333 -blue 13:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete ( G11 unambiguous advertising or promotion) by Bbb23 ( talk · contribs)

Sri sri nitaichaitanya paramhansadev

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

Unsourced hagiography of a local holy man. No signs of any general notability, and even if any were to be found, this article would need to be completely rewritten from top to bottom to meet Wikipedia guidelines. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:19, 7 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. Overall consensus to keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of people from Sialkot

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

This list is only slightly larger than what is already in Sialkot. SethWhales talk 21:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The list here is more than twice as long as the list that was removed from by Sialkot article by GreenCricket on 2 October. I would agree that currently the much longer Category:People from Sialkot does the job much better than a list that requires periodic maintenance. However, I could envision an annotated list, organized by occupation and then chronology that would be appropriate, assuming that the guidelines of WP:Stand-alone lists for criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources are met. Adequate background information, also supported by citation to reliable sources, would need to be included in the lead. I note, for example, that there are twenty-eight cricketers from Sialkot that currently have Wikipedia articles. That said, this is not that list, and I suggest WP:TNT. When and if an editor wishes to create a list that does not duplicate the category, and which in turn complies with the guidelines at WP:Stand-alone lists, including individual citations for sources demonstrating the connection to Sialot if such are not present in each person's article, then recreation would be a valued contribution. Delete for failure to conform to WP:Stand-alone lists. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have done necessary edits and added more personalities so i think article should be kept and secondly i prefer to discuss this article with Pakistani wikipedian so decide whether to kept or to delete. I think it's enough GreenCricket ( talk) 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:LISTPURP as an index of notable topics and as a reasonable WP:SPLIT from Sialkot, and per WP:CLN as complementary to Category:People from Sialkot. Lists of notable people from a notable place are completely standard, and I see nothing particular to this list that would single it out for deletion, certainly no unfixable problems that would merit TNT (and deletion is always an odd way to go about expanding content). At best we'd merge it back to Sialkot, not delete it, but WP:SIZE alone would preclude that as this could be expanded to well over 100 entries judging from the corresponding category. postdlf ( talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 12:16, 7 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, TOOSOON and even no evidence the results were ever published in refereed journals-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Quantum holonomy theory

Quantum holonomy theory (  | 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 secondary sources available for this theory. WP:TOOSOON. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I might add that both of the references that I have added have either been or is in the process of being accepted for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespergrimstrup ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Oscar Andrade

Oscar Andrade (  | 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 boxer - des not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
That would be an unusual precedent for boxers and flies in the face of common sense. Do we redirect all non-notable boxers that fought someone with an article to that article and since they fought more than one - to which article. The point is potentially moot since Valadez is not particularly notable himself and I will PROD it. Peter Rehse ( talk) 08:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Marco Ghibaudo

Marco Ghibaudo (  | 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 kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think a redirect is the best option. It doesn't seem like to best idea to merge one fighter's article into another's. How do you determine which opponent to redirect to? Papaursa ( talk) 17:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Diddy Riese

Diddy Riese (  | 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 have tried to find some reputable sources for this article and come up short. The structure of the page is also not the best and professional I have seen. This is a relatively notable location around the UCLA area (I have personal experience with the area myself having been a student near this area), but I do not believe that this restaurant is notable enough outside of this small microcosm to necessitate a Wikipedia page. What does everyone else think? GoldenSHK ( talk) 08:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)GoldenSHK reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Drmies ( talk) 02:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Bastard Noise

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

This has been around for ever without a single ref. The text seems to provide no special claim to notability, and as it stands it fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Any significant coverage in WP:RS? Also the article says many of their recordings were self-released. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I have no idea about the history of the band, and it's not easy to find facts online. But they got reviewed by Spin, CMJ, Tiny Mix Tapes, and Punknews.org, which is enough for WP:BAND #1. I don't know what a "more important indie label" is, but they apparently released albums on Relapse Records and Alternative Tentacles, both of which I would think satisfy #5. Also, this is perhaps contentious, but they seem to have originated or had a hand in originating powerviolence, a genre (see [34] from Vice; also [35] from The Quietus and [36] from San Antonio Current). That would maybe satisfy #7. They have no hope of satisfying the other criteria, but they seem to be well-known and respected within their niche. If you're wanting an article in Rolling Stone about their history, no, I can't find that. I can do more digging to find articles about their history, but I don't think these are available online. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Finngall talk 07:33, 7 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 'Nomination withdrawn'

Snakes and Lattes

Snakes and Lattes (  | 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. suspect advert as created by single edit user. Coverage is all routine. LibStar ( talk) 06:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:30, 7 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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Haxie

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

Has had notability tag since 2010. Does not seem sufficiently notable. Contains only 2 refs, arguably very low quality ref sources. David Condrey log talk 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:40, 7 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) — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 14:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

He Xiangyu

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

Advertisement: writing style is overly promotional. Wcam ( talk) 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sic psycles promotions

Sic psycles promotions (  | 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 an apparently non-notable organization. I am unable to find any reliable sources the cover the organization in detail. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:27, 9 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. The "keep" opinions mostly do not address the sourcing situation, which is all that matters in such circumstances, I'm afraid.  Sandstein  19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Viswant

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

appears to have had a significant role in only one film, a film which does not yet have an article (the apparent link in the article is just a redirect to the article on the director) DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • DGG Found that this article has done significant role in a film called Kerintha. Request all of you to take a look at the links which has been provided and as he is a famous personalty from Tollywood industry and is about to make one more movie, he deserves an article on wikipedia. kindly consider and do the needful. Itsmeesathya ( talk) 11:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I cannot find any importance with this article. But in later we need to provide an article on Wikipedia for him. As from the references i cannot even find any websites which is listed on Google. Josu4u ( talk) 12:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Shouldn't be Deleted DGG Found that this article is a well known actor from Telugu film industry and has earned a good name and fan base with his first movie " Kerintha". He is committed to other three projects in which one is going to be produced by the same production house of Kerintha. Apart from that he is doing some modeling assignments also. Considering his current and upcoming projects this Article will help many people who want to know more about him. Kindly consider and do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrameshvarma ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
that's a mere listing, like IMdB` DGG ( talk ) 13:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete @ SwisterTwister: Thanks for the ping. Quite frankly, I had CSD'ed this tag when it was in this state. Itsmeesathya decided to remove the CSD tag here, which wasn't appropriate in the first place. Although there is an article for the film, the notability of the actor, even in the context of the film, doesn't seem to be substantial enough. -- JustBerry ( talk) 13:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Shouldn't be Deleted I understand the rules and regulations of Wikipedia but i see everyone opposing the article. yes i agree today it might not be famous to complete audience but relevant audience would like to know more about the article. so according to A7 clause i feel this article should stay and need all your support. May be in future the article may grow more in content and as the article is growing towards a good establishment Priya.wom ( talk) 11:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Undo Delete With all due respect, the article is about a significant person from Tollywood, just because you don't him doesnt mean that he should have a wiki page. He is doing decent contribution to the industry and is well know for his endorsements as well as his upcoming movies. So I suggest that this page should not be deleted. Devilishious ( talk) 11:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Oiyarbepsy i think you have given the correct criteria clause but forgot to read it. please have a look at WP:TOOSOON where it is clearly mentioned in Actors and actresses section that A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen in this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after - however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then. Look at the bold sentence and have a check. Here viswant movie is released & he has done a critically acclaimed role and suitable links are provided which is more then enough but still everyone are arguing without even understanding the whole clause in WP:TOOSOON. I request you all to go through this and this article Shouldn't Be Deleted. Itsmeesathya ( talk) 16:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kentö

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

Questionable notability and article was created by the artist's record company. PROD was contested. Eeekster ( talk) 01:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please explain what is possible to be done? popsonic-rec —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

How does one properly respond to this? Also, what does 'your page has been patrolled,' exactly mean? Thank you for all of your help. I hope I didn't do something wrong, or put the artist's page/reputation in jeopardy by my lack of knowledge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsonic-rec ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Prince's Inlet, Nova Scotia

Prince's Inlet, Nova Scotia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no indication that this is a community. [41] There is a small bay (which seems non-notable) with this name, a road with this name, and a planning area with the name which includes several communities in the area. I can find nothing with the civic address locator [42]. I PROD'ed this article but User:Zpeopleheart replied with a reference that points to the bay, with a comment that is clearly a Wikipedia mirror. Derek Andrews ( talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Derek Andrews ( talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 7 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. Consensus is for article retention. Also, the nominator has essentially withdrawn the nomination in a later comment, stating "sure" about the notion of withdrawal. North America 1000 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The Land of Gorch

The Land of Gorch (  | 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 did the best I could do: the sources I found and added, that's all there is in ten pages of Google results. At best this deserves a paragraph in the article for the first season of SNL; by itself it's not notable. Drmies ( talk) 00:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Cirt ( talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I've removed this pointer, since the subject of the article is only peripherally related to NYC. BMK ( talk) 18:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Saturday Night Live has been an integral part of the culture of New York City, per Saturday Night Live (season 27). But no worries, won't post there again, thanks. — Cirt ( talk) 19:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Cirt ( talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Cirt ( talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt ( talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Drmies:Per request, above to ping the nom, made by Jclemens. And my thanks to Jclemens for the kind words about my recent Quality improvement efforts. Most appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 00:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Sure. Drmies ( talk) 01:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_October_7&oldid=1142223645"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE